SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH BADAL versus BALWANT SINGH KHERA AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 917 · Decided: 28-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
917
SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH BADAL
v.
BALWANT SINGH KHERA AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023)
APRIL 28, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Representation of People Act, 1951 – s. 29-A(5) – Sikh
Gurudwaras Act, 1925 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 420, 463, 465,
466, 467, 468, 471 r/w s. 120B, 191, 192 – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – ss. 202, 204, 315, 482 – A private complaint
was filed by the respondent no.1-original complainant u/ss. 463,
465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 191, 192 of IPC against the appellants –
It was alleged in the complaint that while complying with the
requirements of s.29-A(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951
an affidavit was filed before the Election Commission of India (ECI),
which conflicted with the affidavit/undertaking given to the
Gurudwara Election Commission (GEC) – The said affidavit was
sworn by the then president of SAD stating that the Party was
adhering to the principle of secularism – Under the Sikh Gurdwaras
Act, only Sikhs can become voters or contest elections to SGPC –
That this restricts membership along religious lines and cannot be
said to be secular – It was alleged that the Constitution submitted to
GEC in conformity with the Sikh Gurdwaras Act is contrary to the
one submitted to ECI – It was alleged that the SAD had filed a false
Constitution with ECI to gain recognition as a political party – Trial
Court passed summoning orders against the appellants to face the
trial for the offences u/ss. 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 r/w s.120B
IPC – Aggrieved by the summoning order, the appellants filed an
application before the High Court u/s. 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing
of the complaint as well as the summoning order – The High Court
dismissed the said application and has refused to quash the criminal
proceedings as well as the summoning order – On appeal, held:
The ingredients for the offence of cheating are not at all satisfied
as there is no question of deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly to deliver any property to any person and therefore,
even on bare reading of the averments and allegations in the
complaint, no case even remotely for the offence u/s. 420 IPC is
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 917 : 2023 INSC 466
917
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
918
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
made out – For the offence of forgery, there must be making of a
false document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public
or to any person and therefore, making the false documents is sine
qua non – In the instant case, no false document has been produced
and what was produced was the Memorandum and no other
documents were produced – Even according to the original
complainant, the Memorandum and the claim made at the time of
registration of the Party that it has adopted a Memorandum
accepting the secularism, the same was contrary to the Constitution
of the Party produced before the Gurudwara Election Commission
– Making a false claim and creating and producing the false document
both are different and distinct – Looking to the averments and
allegations in the complaint and even the material/evidence collected/
recorded during the course of the inquiry and even assuming the
complaint’s averments to be true, the ingredients of the offence
punishable u/ss. 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 are not at all made
out – Under the circumstances, the entire criminal proceedings
including the summoning order passed by the trial Court are quashed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Looking to the averments and allegations in
the complaint, it is not appreciable at all, how the appellants are
alleged to have committed the offence of cheating. The
ingredients for the offence of cheating are not at all satisfied.
There is no question of deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. Therefore, even
on bare reading of the averments and allegations in the complaint,
no case even remotely for the offence under Section 420 IPC is
made out. [Para 5.6][932-D-E]
2. As per Section 463, “whoever makes any false
documents, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public
or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any
person to part with property, or to enter into any express or
implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may
be committed”, he is said to have committed the offence of forgery.
Making a false document is defined under Section 464 IPC.
Therefore, for the offence of forgery, there must be making of 

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