MARIAM FASIHUDDIN & ANR. versus STATE BY ADUGODI POLICE STATION & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 22-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 623 : 2024 INSC 49
Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. 
v. 
State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2024)
22 January 2024
[Surya Kant* and Dipankar Datta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The crux of respondent No. 2’s allegations is that the appellants 
purportedly forged his signature on the passport application 
submitted to obtain the minor child’s passport. Whether the actions 
of the appellants prima facie constitute the offence of cheating u/s. 
420 IPC; Whether there has been a prima facie case made out for 
forgery u/ss. 468 and 471 IPC; Whether there has been a violation 
of s.12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967; Whether in the absence of 
any new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn 
by the investigating officer in the supplementary report, a Judicial 
Magistrate was compelled to take cognizance, as such a report 
lacked investigative rigour and failed to satisfy the requisites of 
s.173(8) Cr.P.C.
Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 – Cheating and Forgery – Appellants’ prayer 
to discharge them u/ss. 420, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 r/w. s.34 of 
IPC was dismissed by the High Court – Propriety:
Held: In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the 
appellant-wife seems to have breached the notion of mutual marital 
trust and unauthorizedly projected respondent no. 2’s consent in 
obtaining the passport for their minor child – It, however, remains 
a question as to how such an act can be labelled as ‘deceitful’ – 
The motivations prompting either of the appellants to procure a 
passport for the minor child were not rooted in deceit – Furthermore, 
the grant of passport to the minor child did not confer any benefit 
upon the appellan-wife, nor did it result in any loss or damage 
to respondent no. 2 – In the same vein, appellant no. 2, being 
the father of the appellant-wife and assisting in securing the 
passport for the child, derived no direct or indirect benefit from 
this action – This grant can be best characterised as the minor 
624
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
child’s acquisition of property – Since the gain by the minor child 
is not at the cost of any loss, damage or injury to respondent 
no. 2, both the fundamental elements of ‘deceit’ and ‘damage 
or injury’, requisite for constituting the offence of cheating are 
conspicuously absent in this factual scenario – As far as forgery 
is concerned, the offences of ‘forgery’ and ‘cheating’ intersect 
and converge, as the act of forgery is committed with the intent 
to deceive or cheat an individual – The determination of whether 
the appellants prepared a false document, by forging respondent 
no. 2’s signature, however, cannot be even prima facie ascertained 
at this juncture – Considering the primary ingredient of dishonest 
intention itself could not be established against the appellants, 
the offence of forgery too, has no legs to stand – The elementary 
ingredients of ‘cheating’ and ‘forgery’ are conspicuously missing 
– Thus, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the 
appellants is nothing but an abuse of the process of law – The 
impugned judgments of the High Court and the trial Court are set 
aside. [Paras 16, 18, 20, 23, 34, 39]
Passport Act, 1967 – s. 12(b) – Whether there was a violation 
of s.12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967:
Held: Section 12(b) categorically states that, whoever knowingly 
furnishes any false information or suppresses any material 
information, with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document 
under this Act or without lawful authority, alters or attempts to 
alter or causes to alter the entries made in a passport or travel 
document – As discernible from the language of the provision, 
what must be established is that the accused knowingly furnished 
false information or suppressed material information with the 
intent of obtaining a passport or travel document – In the instant 
case, it is crucial to consider that the State FSL report explicitly 
stated that the alleged forgery of respondent No. 2’s signatures 
on the passport application was inconclusive – Moreover, the 
cognizance of such like offence can be taken only at the instance 
of the Prescribed Authority – No complaint to that effect has been 
disclosed against the Appellants – The Court cannot proceed on 
the basis of conjectures and surmises.[Paras 35, 36]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 173 (8) – Respondent 
no. 2 invoked s.173(8) Cr.P.C. and sought further investigati

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.