Case Note & Summary
The present appeals arise from a private complaint filed by the respondent-complainant before the learned ACJM, Hoshiarpur, alleging offences under Sections 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 191, 192 IPC against Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal, Shri Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa, Shri Surinder Singh Shinda, and Dr. Daljit Singh Cheema. The complaint alleged that while complying with Section 29-A(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, an affidavit was filed with the Election Commission of India (ECI) stating that the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) adhered to the principle of secularism, but the party's constitution submitted to the Gurudwara Election Commission (GEC) under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, restricted membership to Sikhs, which was contrary to secularism. It was alleged that the SAD had filed a false constitution with ECI to gain recognition as a political party. The learned Trial Court held an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC and recorded witness statements. The complainant later filed an application to summon Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal and Dr. Daljit Singh Cheema as witnesses and to strike their names from the complaint. The Trial Court, by order dated 26.08.2011, summoned them as witnesses. Subsequently, the Trial Court passed a summoning order against the appellants (original accused) under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B IPC. The appellants filed an application under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking quashing of the summoning order and subsequent proceedings. The High Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the complaint and the summoning order. It held that the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 465-471 IPC. For cheating under Section 420, there must be deception with dishonest intention to induce delivery of property, which was absent. For forgery, there must be making of a false document with intent to cause damage or injury, which was not alleged. The Court noted that the mere filing of contradictory affidavits did not constitute a criminal offence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the summoning order and all subsequent proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of Summoning Order - Inherent Powers - The High Court erred in dismissing the application under Section 482 CrPC as the summoning order was passed without prima facie satisfaction of the ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 465-471 IPC. The complaint alleged filing of contradictory affidavits under Section 29-A(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, but did not disclose any fraudulent or dishonest intention to deceive the Election Commission. Held that the summoning order was liable to be quashed as no offence was made out (Paras 10-15). B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 - Cheating and Forgery - Essential Ingredients - For an offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be deception with dishonest intention to induce delivery of property. For forgery under Sections 465-471, there must be making of a false document with intent to cause damage or injury. The complaint merely alleged that the political party submitted a false constitution to the Election Commission, but did not allege any deception or fraudulent intent. Held that the essential ingredients of cheating and forgery were not made out (Paras 12-14). C) Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29-A(5) - Affidavit of Allegiance to Secularism - The requirement under Section 29-A(5) is that the affidavit must state that the party bears true faith and allegiance to the principles of secularism. The complaint alleged that the party's constitution submitted to the Gurudwara Election Commission was contrary to the affidavit given to the Election Commission. However, the mere filing of contradictory affidavits does not constitute an offence under IPC unless there is fraudulent intent. Held that the complaint did not disclose any criminal offence (Paras 8-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the summoning order passed by the Trial Court under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B IPC, when the complaint did not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, and quashed the summoning order passed by the Trial Court and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Law Points
- Summoning order under Section 204 CrPC must be based on prima facie satisfaction of ingredients of offence alleged
- Complaint under Section 200 CrPC must disclose essential ingredients of offence
- High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings when no offence is made out
- Section 29-A(5) of Representation of People Act
- 1951 requires affidavit of allegiance to secularism
- Filing of contradictory affidavits does not per se constitute cheating or forgery under IPC
