Chargesheet Cannot Be Based On Bald Assertions Of Connivance: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that offences in the chargesheet cannot be based on bald assertions of connivance. There must be some substance to it. 

A bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol also held that if the intent prima facie is absent qua one of the offences in the same transaction, it is absent in respect of other offences as well. 

These observations were made in a judgment pronounced in an appeal challenging the High Court of Madhya Pradesh's order dated April 28, 2017, whereby the Court refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

The offences in the chargesheet are filed under Sections 419 (punishment for cheating by personation), 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document) and 120B (punishment for criminal conspiracy) r/w 34(Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), Indian Penal Code 1860 against five persons for forging the Power of Attorney of the original seller and getting the property registered in their name.

Against this, one accused (Dinesh Kumar-official of the Housing Board) filed a petition before the High Court to quash the FIR.

He argued that executing the sale deed was connected with his official duty and that he was protected under Section 83 (protection of action taken in good faith) of the Madhya Pradesh Girha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972, which is akin to Section 197 (prosecution of judges and public servants) of the CrPC. 

What did the Supreme Court say?

The Supreme Court referred to the ample judgments interpreting Section 197 namely Manohar Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1983), Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P. & Ors. (1997), and A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma & Anr (2023). 

The law laid down in these judgments states that a public servant can only be prosecuted if the act constituting an offence is directly and reasonably connected with his official duty and will require sanction for prosecution under the said provision. But if the act/omission is integral to the performance of public duty, the public servant is entitled to protection under Section 197(1) of CrPC.

Having considered the application of Section 197, the Court opined that the arguments of the Appellant that he did the act in his official duty would be covered by Section 83 of the Madhya Pradesh Girha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972.

"There is no inkling in the slightest, apart from alleging connivance to suggest that the appellant had played a role, in dereliction of his duty. That apart, there are further reasons as to why the High Court appears to have erred in refusing to quash the subject criminal proceedings," the Court observed. 

Then, the Court pursued whether the ingredients of the offence of Cheating were present.

It referred to Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B (2022), which observed that to establish the offence of cheating in inducing the delivery of property, the representation made by the person was false (1); the accused had prior knowledge that the representation made was false (2); the false representation was made with dishonest intention in order to deceive (3) and act where the accused induced the person to deliver the property or to perform or to abstain from any act which the person would have not done or had otherwise committed (4).

Thereafter, it observed: "There is nothing on record to suggest, even prima facie, that any of the abovesaid ingredients are met in the case of the present appellant. No intent can be hinted to, where the appellant had willfully, with the intent to defraud, acted upon the allegedly forged Power of Attorney."

Similar observation was made in regard to the requirement of Section 120B. It referred to Bilal Hajar v. State (2019) where it was observed that to constitute a conspiracy, a meeting of minds of two or more persons to be an illegal act or by illegal means must be there. 

It held: "Nor that the appellant had any information or knowledge about the subject Power of Attorney being forged.... If the intent is on the face of it is absent qua one of the offences in the same transaction, it is absent in respect of the other offence as well, viz., Section 467, 468...no intention whatsoever could be attributed to the present appellant, and in the absence of any intention attributable to him, no criminal offence can be made out."

Based on the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), which held the criteria for quashing the FIR on the face value and if accepted in its entirety does not prima facie constitute an offence or does not disclose a cognisance offence, the Court set aside the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. 

Case Details: DINESH KUMAR MATHUR v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 20

Click Here To Read Order