Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dharambeer Kumar Singh, filed a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC against M/s SS Infrastructure Co and its partners, alleging that they submitted forged and fabricated documents to obtain a government contract worth Rs.35,18,11,422/- for the Namna Ankiat Project under the Jinjoyi Irrigation Scheme. The FIR was registered for offences under Sections 384, 389, 406, 420 read with Sections 34 and 120B IPC. The investigating agency submitted two final reports citing lack of evidence, but the Magistrate rejected them, observing serious lapses and that the documents were fabricated. The Magistrate issued a summoning order on 31.01.2022. The respondents challenged this order before the High Court of Jharkhand under Section 482 CrPC, which quashed the summoning order and criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a mini trial and deciding disputed questions of fact regarding who forged the documents. The Court emphasized that at the summoning stage, only a prima facie case is required, and the respondents, being the beneficiaries of the forged documents, cannot escape liability merely because the appellant may also be involved. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the criminal proceedings were restored.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - Mini Trial - High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a mini trial and recording findings on disputed questions of fact regarding complicity in forgery at the stage of summoning - Held that at the stage of discharge or quashing, the court is only required to consider whether sufficient material exists to proceed against the accused, not to appreciate evidence (Paras 15-17).
B) Indian Penal Code - Forgery and Cheating - Sections 384, 389, 406, 420, 34, 120B IPC - Beneficiary Liability - The fact that the appellant may also be involved in forgery does not absolve the respondents who were the ultimate beneficiaries of the forged documents - Held that two wrongs do not make a right, and criminal liability must be determined through trial (Paras 13, 18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the summoning order and criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC by delving into disputed questions of fact and holding a mini trial at the nascent stage of summons.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand quashed and set aside. Criminal proceedings in Case No. 30 of 2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Palamau restored.
Law Points
- Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to conduct mini trial
- disputed questions of fact cannot be decided at summoning stage
- beneficiary of forged documents cannot escape liability merely because another person may also be involved
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No. __________ of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 1500 of 2024) with Criminal Appeal No. __________ of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 1660 of 2024)
The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against High Court order quashing summoning order and criminal proceedings in a case of alleged forgery and cheating.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought restoration of summoning order and criminal proceedings against respondents.
Filing Reason
Appellant alleged that respondents submitted forged documents to obtain a government contract and did not pay him as a sub-contractor.
Previous Decisions
High Court of Jharkhand quashed summoning order dated 31.01.2022 and criminal proceedings in Case No. 30 of 2019 pending before Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Palamau.
Issues
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the summoning order and criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC by conducting a mini trial and deciding disputed questions of fact.
Whether the respondents, being beneficiaries of forged documents, can be absolved of criminal liability merely because the appellant may also be involved in the forgery.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: The experience certificate was forged and respondents were beneficiaries; at summoning stage only prima facie case is required; High Court transgressed its jurisdiction.
Respondent No.1 (State): Supported appellant; summoning order was well-reasoned.
Respondent No.2: Appellant manipulated documents; respondents were sleeping partners or resigned; investigating agency submitted two final reports finding no evidence; appellant has criminal antecedents and is using proceedings for ulterior motive.
Ratio Decidendi
At the stage of summoning, the court is not required to conduct a mini trial or appreciate evidence; only a prima facie case is needed. Disputed questions of fact, such as who forged the documents, must be decided during trial. The fact that the appellant may also be involved does not absolve the respondents who are beneficiaries of the forged documents.
Judgment Excerpts
As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Procedural History
FIR No. 38/2019 registered on 02.04.2019 under Sections 384, 389, 406, 420 r/w 34, 120B IPC. Investigating agency submitted first final report on 31.10.2020 citing lack of evidence; Magistrate rejected it on 12.02.2021 ordering further investigation. Second final report also rejected; Magistrate issued summoning order on 31.01.2022. Respondents filed petition under Section 482 CrPC before High Court of Jharkhand, which quashed summoning order and proceedings on 05.12.2023. Appellant appealed to Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 156(3), 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 384, 389, 406, 420, 34, 120B
