SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH BADAL versus BALWANT SINGH KHERA AND ORS. on 28 April 2023

[2023] 10 S.C.R. 917 : 2023 INSC 466

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) – SikhGurudwaras Act, 1925 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 420, 463, 465,466, 467, 468, 471 r/w s. 120B, 191, 192 – Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 – ss. 202, 204, 315, 482 – A private complaintwas 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 therequirements of s.29-A(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951an affidavit was filed before the Election Commission of India (ECI),which conflicted with the affidavit/undertaking given to theGurudwara Election Commission (GEC) – The said affidavit wassworn by the then president of SAD stating that the Party wasadhering to the principle of secularism – Under the Sikh GurdwarasAct, only Sikhs can become voters or contest elections to SGPC –That this restricts membership along religious lines and cannot besaid to be secular – It was alleged that the Constitution submitted toGEC in conformity with the Sikh Gurdwaras Act is contrary to theone submitted to ECI – It was alleged that the SAD had filed a falseConstitution with ECI to gain recognition as a political party – TrialCourt passed summoning orders against the appellants to face thetrial for the offences u/ss. 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 r/w s.120BIPC – Aggrieved by the summoning order, the appellants filed anapplication before the High Court u/s. 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashingof the complaint as well as the summoning order – The High Courtdismissed the said application and has refused to quash the criminalproceedings as well as the summoning order – On appeal, held:The ingredients for the offence of cheating are not at all satisfiedas there is no question of deceiving any person, fraudulently ordishonestly to deliver any property to any person and therefore,even on bare reading of the averments and allegations in thecomplaint, no case even remotely for the offence u/s. 420 IPC is

A

B

CD

EF

GH

Amade out – For the offence of forgery, there must be making of afalse document with intent to cause damage or injury to the publicor to any person and therefore, making the false documents is sinequa non – In the instant case, no false document has been producedand what was produced was the Memorandum and no otherdocuments were produced – Even according to the originalBcomplainant, the Memorandum and the claim made at the time ofregistration of the Party that it has adopted a Memorandumaccepting the secularism, the same was contrary to the Constitutionof the Party produced before the Gurudwara Election Commission– Making a false claim and creating and producing the false documentCboth are different and distinct – Looking to the averments andallegations in the complaint and even the material/evidence collected/recorded during the course of the inquiry and even assuming thecomplaint’s averments to be true, the ingredients of the offencepunishable u/ss. 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 are not at all made out – Under the circumstances, the entire criminal proceedingsDincluding the summoning order passed by the trial Court are quashed.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. Looking to the averments and allegations inthe complaint, it is not appreciable at all, how the appellants areEalleged to have committed the offence of cheating. Theingredients for the offence of cheating are not at all satisfied.There is no question of deceiving any person, fraudulently ordishonestly to deliver any property to any person. Therefore, evenon bare reading of the averments and allegations in the complaint,no case even remotely for the offence under Section 420 IPC isFmade out. [Para 5.6][932-D-E]

2. As per Section 463, “whoever makes any falsedocuments, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the publicor to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause anyperson to part with property, or to enter into any express orGimplied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud maybe 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 afalse document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public H

or to any person. Therefore, making the false documents is sinequa non. In the present case, no false document has beenproduced. What was produced was the Memorandum and no otherdocuments were produced. Even according to the originalcomplainant, the Memorandum and the claim made at the time ofregistration of the Party that it has adopted a Memorandumaccepting the secularism, the same was contrary to theConstitution of the Party produced before the Gurudwara ElectionCommission. Making a false claim and creating and producingthe false document both are different and distinct. [Paras 5.8,5.9][932-H; 933-A-B; 934-B-C]

3. Looking to the averments and allegations in the complaintand even the material/evidence collected/recorded during thecourse of the inquiry and even assuming the complaint’s avermentsto be true, the ingredients of the offence punishable underSections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 are not at all made out.Under the circumstances to continue the criminal proceedingsagainst the appellants – accused arising out of the complaint andto face the trial by the accused as per the summoning order isnothing but an abuse of process of law and court and this is a fitcase to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of thecomplaint filed by the respondent including the summoning orderpassed by the learned Trial Court. [Paras 5.11, 6][934-E-F; 935-A-B]

Sardar Sarup Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab andOrs. AIR 1959 SC 860; S. R. Bommai and Ors. v. Unionof India and Ors. (1994) 3 SCC 1 : [1994] 2 SCR 644;Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madrasv. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt[1954] SCR 1005; Birla Corporation Limited v. AdventzInvestments and Holdings Limited and Ors. (2019) 16SCC 610 : [2019] 7 SCR 655; Mohammed Ibrahim andOrs. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751 :[2009] 13 SCR 1254; Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CentralBureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609 : [2015] 1SCR 377; Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir MohammadTunda and Ors. (2015) 12 SCC 420 : [2015] 4 SCR841 – referred to.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACaseLawReference

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.C1116 of 2023.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2021 of the High Courtof Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 54161 of 2019.

With

DCriminal Appeal Nos.1118 and 1117 of 2023.

K.V. Viswanathan, R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advs., Ms. Nandini Gore,Sandeep Kapur, Virinder Pal Singh, Ms. Aditi Bhatt, Ms. TahiraKaranjawala, Ms. Niharika Karanjawala, Ms. Apoorva Pandey, ArjunSharma, G.g. Kashyap, Rose Verma, Ms. Sanya Dua, Yash Dubey,EMs. Tarannum Cheema, Akash Singh for M/s. Karanjawala & Co. Advs.for the Appellant.

C.U, Singh, Sr. Adv., Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Indira Unninayar,Ms. Mudrakshi, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byFM. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarhin CRM-M No. 54161 of 2019 by which the High Court has dismissedthe said application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has not quashedGand set aside the summoning order passed by the learned Trial Courtsummoning the appellants herein – original writ petitioners under Sections420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B IPC and other subsequentproceedings arising therefrom, the original accused – appellants hereinhave preferred the present appeals.

H

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-

H

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:- 2.1 Initially, a private complaint was filed by the respondent No. 1herein – original complainant before the learned ACJM, Hoshiarpurbeing Complaint No. 23 of 2009 for the offences under Sections463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 191, 192 of IPC, 1860 against ShriSukhbir Singh Badal, Shri Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa, Shri SurinderSingh Shinda and Dr. Daljit Singh Cheema.

At this stage, it is required to be noted that at the relevant time,Shri Parkash Singh Badal, one of the accused now, was not arrayedas an accused.

2.2 It was alleged in the complaint that while complying with therequirements of Section 29-A(5) of the Representation of PeopleAct, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1951”), an affidavitwas filed in the shape of an undertaking with the ElectionCommission of India (ECI), which conflicted with the affidavit/undertaking given to the Gurudwara Election Commission (GEC).

2.3 It was alleged that the said affidavit was sworn by Shri ParkashSingh Badal, the then President, Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) statingthat the Party was adhering to the principle of secularism. Underthe Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, only Sikhs can become voters orcontest elections to Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee(SGPC). That this restricts membership along religious lines andcannot said to be secular. It was alleged that the Constitutionsubmitted to GEC in conformity with the Sikh Gurdwaras Act,1925 is contrary to the one submitted to ECI as it shows that theParty is engaged in religious activities while giving an undertakingto ECI that it shall bear allegiance to the principles of secularism.That the SAD had no right to function as a political party as itsoffice bearers are non-secular. Therefore, the SAD has filed afalse Constitution with ECI to gain recognition as a political party.

2.4 That the learned Trial Court held the inquiry under Section 202Cr.P.C. and recorded the statement of the concerned witnesses.The original complainant filed an application before the learnedTrial Court with a prayer that Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal and Dr.Daljit Singh Cheema be summoned as witnesses and asked toproduce the documents asked for. It was further submitted thatthe complainant does not want to pursue the complaint against A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

them and their names be stuck down from the title of the complaint.2.5 The said application was filed on 06.04.2011. By order dated26.08.2011, the learned Trial Court ordered the aforesaid twopersons to be summoned as witnesses along with the record. Thatthe primary revision application before the first revisional court –learned Sessions Court came to be dismissed observing that therevision is not maintainable against an interlocutory order and thatno order has been passed by the learned Trial Court on theapplication dated 06.04.2011 of the complainant as regards notpursuing the complaint against them. That the complainant againfiled an application dated 04.07.2014 before the learned Trial Courtin Complaint No. 23 of 2009 submitting that he does not want topursue the application dated 06.04.2011.

2.6 The second application dated 06.08.2014 filed by the appellantsherein - original writ petitioners under Section 315(1)(a) and (b)of Cr.P.C. before the learned ACJM came to be dismissed. Theappellants herein filed revision application before the High Courtseeking quashing of the orders passed by the learned Trial Courtby which they were summoned as witnesses, which came to bedisposed of by the High Court, setting aside the summoning of thewitnesses while allowing the record to be submitted through dulyauthorized person. That thereafter the inquiry proceeded furtherand the evidence of the relevant witnesses came to be recorded.

2.7 That after a period of 09 years after the original complaint, thecomplainant moved an amendment application on 28.04.2017 foramendment of the complaint, seeking to introduce substantialchanges to the complaint as well as five more persons to be addedas accused and certain offences were also to be added in thecomplaint. Shri Parkash Singh Badal came to be added as anaccused in the amendment sought. The said application foramendment came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court videorder dated 07.06.2017.

2.8 The original complainant challenged the said order dated07.06.2017 before the High Court, which was subsequentlywithdrawn with liberty to approach the Trial Court. That on08.08.2017, the original complainant – respondent No. 1 hereinfiled second application for amendment. The complainant’s second application for amendment of the complaint again came to bedismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 09.11.2017.That thereafter by order dated 04.11.2019, impugned before theHigh Court, the learned Trial Court passed summoning ordersagainst the appellants to face the trial for the offences underSections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B IPC. At thisstage, it is required to be noted that by the said summoning order,even Shri Parkash Singh Badal, who was not arrayed as an accusedin the complaint, has now been arrayed as an accused, has beensummoned to face the trial for the aforesaid offences.

2.9 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the summoning order,the appellants herein preferred the present application before theHigh Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of thecomplaint as well as the summoning order dated 04.11.2019. Bythe impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissedthe said application and has refused to quash the criminalproceedings as well as the summoning order. Hence the presentappeals.

3. Shri K.V. Viswanathan, learned Senior Advocate appearing onbehalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that the complaintimpugned before the High Court is as such nothing but an abuse ofprocess of law and the court and therefore, the Hon’ble High Courtought to have quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of the complaintfiled by the respondent No. 1.

3.1 It is submitted that the complaint dated 20.02.2009, filed bythe respondent No. 1, has been filed belatedly after 20 years ofthe registration of the Party and in fact after the respondent No.1 failed in his attempt to get the registration of the Party cancelled.It is submitted that Section 29-A of the Act, 1951 was inserted byway of amendment, with effect nom 15.03.1989. This amendment,inter alia, prescribed that a political party Memorandum seekingregistration, shall either file a Memorandum or the Rules andRegulations of the Body (namely the Constitution), by whatevername called, containing the specific provision that the Associationor Body shall bear true faith and allegiance to the principles ofSocialism, Secularism and Democracy. It is submitted that Section29-A did not require an amendment to the Constitution.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

3.2 It is submitted that the Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal) [SAD(B)]applied for registration under the said provision by way of anapplication dated 14.08.1989. The registration of SAD(B) waschallenged through a reference letter sent by the respondent No.1, Balwant Singh Khera to the Election Commission of India. Afterreceiving the comments of SAD(B), the Secretariat of the ECIinformed the counsel for respondent No. 1 that the challenge wasnot sustainable. The order passed by the ECI was intimated videcommunication dated 10.01.2008.

3.3 It is submitted that thereafter having failed to get theregistration of the Party cancelled, the respondent No. 1 has lodgedthe present complaint dated 20.02.2009, which is belatedly filedafter 20 years of the registration and is nothing but an abuse ofprocess of law and court.

3.4 It is submitted that the very premise of the complaint was thatthe undertaking given to the ECI while complying with Section29-A of the Act, 1951 conflicted with the Constitution submitted tothe Gurudwara Election Commission insofar as the Party wasengaged in religious activities, while giving false declaration onsecularism. It is submitted that according to respondent No. 1, asper the Constitution of the Shiromani Gurudwara PrabandhakCommittee, only a person believing in Sikhism and a particularreligion can contest the election. It is submitted that as per therespondent No. 1, the clauses in the Constitution of the Party cannotbe said to be believing in secularism and therefore, according torespondent No. 1, while submitting the declaration under Section29-A of the Act, 1951, a false and contrary claim was made, it issubmitted that as such the aforesaid has no substance.

3.5 It is submitted that the management of a religious place is asecular act. The Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 is concerned withbetter management of the gurudwaras and participating in electionsfor Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) is nota non-secular act. It is submitted that even while believing in aparticular religion, a person / Party can be secular. Reliance isplaced on the decisions of this Court in the case of Sardar SarupSingh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1959 SC860; S.R. Bommai and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.,(1994) 3 SCC 1; and Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiarof Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005.

3.6 It is submitted that being religious is not antithetical tosecularism. One can be religious as well as secular in outlook. Itis submitted that Party’s membership is open to all. It is submittedthat therefore, the basis on which the complaint is filed with itselfis baseless.

3.7 It is further submitted by Shri Viswanathan, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that evenotherwise on merits also, no case is made out for the offence forwhich the learned Trial Court has summoned the appellants toface the trial, namely, under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471read with 120B IPC.

3.8 It is submitted that so far as the offence of cheating alleged isconcerned, no offence of cheating as defined in Section 415 IPC,is made out. It is submitted that the ingredients for the offence ofcheating has not been made out. It is submitted that even in thecomplaint, offence under Section 420 IPC was not even mentioned.Later, a proposed amendment with a view to introduce Section420 IPC and to add the more persons as accused was made,which came to be rejected by a speaking order. The matter wastaken to the Hon’ble High Court but the criminal revision waswithdrawn. The second application for the same relief movedbefore the Learned Magistrate was also dismissed by just a well-reasoned order.

3.9 It is submitted that even the offence of forgery has not beenmade out. It is submitted that there is no reference to any specificdocument either in complaint or in the preliminary evidence. It issubmitted that there is no allegation and/or a case is made out thatany false document was created and produced. It is furthersubmitted that as such the appellants had absolutely no role infiling of the application for registration. It is submitted that ParkashSingh Badal was not the President of the Party at the time ofmaking the application. Neither Sukhbir Singh Badal nor DaljitSingh Cheema was holding any office for the Party at that time. Itis submitted that even otherwise, there was no false affidavit norany forged document had been attached alongwith the application AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Afor registration, which was made in accordance with law. It issubmitted that a careful perusal of Section 29-A of the Act, 1951would show that a political party seeking registration could eitherfile its Constitution or a Memorandum incorporating the declarationthat it shall bear true faith and allegiance to the principle ofSecularism. It is submitted that the copy of Constitution was notBattached and only a copy of the Memorandum adopted by theParty, in terms of Section 29-A of the Act, 1951 was attachedwith the application. It is submitted that therefore, the ingredientsof cheating, forgery are not at all made.

A

3.10 It is further submitted by Shri Viswanathan, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that so far asParkash Singh Badal is concerned, the mandatory requirement ofinquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has not been followed beforeissuance of summons. It is submitted that neither, Parkash SinghBadal was arrayed as an accused in the complaint nor at the timeof inquiry he was cited as an accused. It is submitted that therefore,in absence of any mandatory inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.,the summoning order is vitiated. Reliance is placed on the decisionof this Court in the case of Birla Corporation Limited Vs.Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and Ors.,(2019) 16 SCC 610.

C

D

E

3.11 It is further submitted that while considering the revisionapplication, the High Court has not properly appreciated and/orconsidered that the summoning order was vitiated because of thefailure to consider the question as to whether the applicationdiscloses the commission of the offences alleged or the ingredientsFof the offences. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of thisCourt in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. Stateof Bilar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751 (Paras 13-14, 21); SunilBharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015)4 SCC 609 (Para 48); and Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs. KhazirGMohammad Tunda and Ors., (2015) 12 SCC 420 (Para 20).

G

3.12 Making above submissions, it is prayed to allow the presentappeals.

4. While opposing the present appeals, Shri Prashant Bhushan,learned counsel and Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel have madeHthe following submissions:- 4.1 That in the facts and circumstances of the case and consideringthe material on record and/or evidence recorded during the courseof the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and therefore, when thelearned Trial Court was satisfied that a prima facie case is madeout against the accused for the offences under Sections 420, 465,466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B IPC, neither the learned TrialCourt has committed any error in summoning the accused to facethe trial for the aforesaid offences nor the Hon’ble High Courthas committed any error in disposing the revision application.

4.2 It is submitted that as such the impugned order passed by theHigh Court is just within the parameters of the limitation of theHigh Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.and thereafter when the Hon’ble High Court has dismissed therevision application and has refused to quash the summoning orderand the criminal proceedings while exercising the limited jurisdictionunder Section 482 Cr.P.C., the same may not be interfered withby this Court.

4.3 It is further submitted by Shri Prashant Bhushan, learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant that thecase is a serious one of fraud, forgery and cheating committed bythe accused – appellants herein in order to obtain the registrationof the Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal), as a political party. It issubmitted that the witnesses have stated that a fabricated documentpresenting it as the Party’s “Memorandum” or “Rules andRegulations” was submitted to the Election Commission of Indiain order to project compliance with Section 29-A of the Act, 1951and thereby, obtained registration and its benefits.

4.4 It is submitted that as per the witnesses examined during thecourse of inquiry, Shri Parkash Singh Badal had issued instructionsto the concerned persons to file such document.

4.5 It is submitted that the petitioners- appellants herein ShriParkash Singh Badal had submitted a different Constitution beforethe Gurdwara Election Commission (GEC), which was inconformity with the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 to seek election tothe Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC). It issubmitted that the eligibility criteria to contest the election of theSGPC and the undertakings before the ECI and GEC are contrary AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

to each other. It is submitted that therefore, a secular image as apolitical party was being projected before the ECI, while beforethe GEC, it was projected that only restricted membership of onlyadult Singhs and Singhnis / baptized Sikhs, was permitted. It issubmitted that, thus, a falsified Constitution was knowingly filedby the appellants before the ECI. It is submitted that the continuingnature of fraud and the roles of appellants have also been broughtout by the witnesses and through evidence collected during theinquiry collected through the pre-summoning stage before thelearned Magistrate’s Court, resulting in its summoning order.

4.6 It is further submitted by Shri Prashant Bhushan, learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant that at thestage of summoning, the allegations in the complaint alone arerequired to be considered and it is required to be consideredwhether the allegations in the complaint disclose cognizableoffences committed by the appellants or not. It is submitted that acomplaint only sets the law into motion, whereas, it is on the basis of evidence recorded in accordance with Section 200 Cr.P.C.,that a Magistrate’s court is dutybound and empowered to pass aspeaking order under Section 203 Cr.P.C. or Section 204 Cr.P.C.It is submitted that on the basis of the material/evidence collected/recorded during the course of the inquiry, the Magistrate’s Courtdecides to summon or not to summon those involved in the offences.It is submitted that, therefore, once on the basis of the materialcollected during the course of the inquiry, if the Magistrate issatisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused,summoning order be issued against the accused to face the trial.

4.7 It is submitted that in the present case by submitting the falseclaim of secularism just contrary to the relevant clauses in theConstitution of the Party, a clear case is made out for the offenceunder Section 415/420 IPC. It is submitted that it is a clear caseof cheating and dishonest inducement. It is further submitted bythe learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainantthat even the case for forgery is made out. It is submitted that asper the definition of forgery, “whoever makes any false documentswith intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed bysuch persons is said to have committed the offence of forgery”.It is submitted that therefore, in the present case, a clear case offorgery has been made out.

4.8 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants,more particularly, by the appellant – Parkash Singh Badal that ashe was originally not named in the complaint and even at the timeof inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., he was not named in theinquiry and therefore, the summoning order is vitiated on the groundthat the mandatory requirement of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.has not been complied with, is concerned, it is submitted that onthe basis of the material / evidence collected during the course ofinquiry, if the Magistrate finds that a person not named in thecomplaint has also committed the offence, the Magistrate is alwaysjustified in summoning that person as an accused. It is submittedthat even otherwise on non-compliance of the requirement underSection 202 Cr.P.C. of holding the inquiry, the summoning orderon merits cannot be said to have been vitiated. Shri Bhushan,learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainantmade elaborate submissions on what can be said to be secularismand/or whether the appellants believed in secularism or not and/orthe Party believes in secularism or not. However, for the reasonshereinabove, we do not propose to go into such larger questionand therefore, we are not dealing with the same elaborately.

4.9 Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the presentappeals.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.We have also perused and considered the averments and allegations inthe complaint dated 20.02.2009 as well as the application and theMemorandum annexed with the application filed for registration of theParty, while submitting the application under Section 29-A of the Act,1951. We have also gone through the summoning order passed by thelearned Trial Court.

5.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the appellantsherein are summoned by the learned Trial Court to face the trialfor the offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 readwith Section 120B IPC.

5.2 The main allegation in the complaint was that in the year 1989and as per the Constitution prevailing at the relevant time, i.e., inthe year 1989, Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal) was engaged in non-secularism but they contested and got seats in the elections to the ABC

D

EF

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

SGPC, therefore, the Memorandum annexed with the applicationfor registration under Section 29-A of the Act, 1951 was false.

5.3 From the material on record, more particularly, the applicationfor registration of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal) under Section29-A of the Act, 1951, it appears that as per the requirement underSection 29-A, that a political party should deal in secularism andsocialism, a Memorandum to that effect was produced. Neitherthe “Constitution” of the Party nor any other “Rules or Regulations”were produced. It was stated in the application that the Party hadadopted a Memorandum to the effect that “Shiromani Akali Dal(Badal) shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution ofIndia as by law established and to the principles of socialism,secularism and democracy and would uphold the sovereignty, unityand integrity of lndia”. What was produced was the copy of theMemorandum. In light of the above, the offence for which theaccused are summoned to face the trial are required to beconsidered.

5.4 Appellants are summoned to face the trial for the offencesunder Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B IPC.The relevant provisions are as under:- “420.Cheatinganddishonestlyinducingdelivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestlyinduces the person deceived to deliver any property to anyperson, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of avaluable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, andwhich is capable of being converted into a valuable security,shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for aterm which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liableto fine.

465. Punishment for forgery.—Whoever commitsforgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either descriptionfor a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or withboth.

466. ForgeryofrecordofCourtorof publicregister,etc.—Whoever forges a document or an electronicrecord, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, ora register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate ordocument purporting to be made by a public servant in hisofficial capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, orto take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or apower of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of eitherdescription for a term which may extend to seven years, andshall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section “register”includes any list, data or record of any entries maintained in theelectronic form as defined in clause (r) of sub- section (1) ofSection 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.—Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuablesecurity or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or whichpurports to give authority to any person to make or transferany valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest ordividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movableproperty, or valuable security, or any document purporting tobe an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment ofmoney, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of anymovable property or valuable security, shall be punished withimprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either descriptionfor a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also beliable to fine.

468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.— Whoevercommits forgery, intending that the document or electronicrecord forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shallbe punished with imprisonment of either description for a termwhich may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable tofine.

471. Usingasgenuineaforgeddocumentorelectronicrecord.—Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly usesas genuine any document or electronic record which he knowsor has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronicrecord, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forgedsuch document or electronic record.”

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

5.5 Now, so far as the offence under Section 420 of the IPC isconcerned, “whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces theperson deceived to deliver any property to anyperson,……………” shall be said to have committed the offenceof cheating and shall be punished. Cheating is defined under Section415 IPC, which reads as under:- A

B

415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person,fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived todeliver any property to any person, or to consent that any personshall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person sodeceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do oromit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omissioncauses or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person inbody, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

C

Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is adeception within the meaning of this section.”

D

5.6 Looking to the averments and allegations in the complaint, it isnot appreciable at all, how the appellants are alleged to havecommitted the offence of cheating. The ingredients for the offenceof cheating are not at all satisfied. There is no question of deceivingany person, fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property toany person……… Therefore, even on bare reading of theaverments and allegations in the complaint, no case even remotelyfor the offence under Section 420 IPC is made out.

E

5.7 Now, so far as the offence under Section 465 is concerned.As per Section 465, “whoever commits forgery shall be punishedFfor the offence under Section 465”. Forgery is defined underSection 463, which reads as under:- “463.Forgery.—Whoever makes any false documentsor false electronic record or part of a document or electronicrecord, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public orto any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause anyperson to part with property, or to enter into any express orimplied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraudmay be committed, commits forgery.”

G

5.8 Therefore, as per Section 463, “whoever makes any falsedocuments, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or H

to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause anyperson to part with property, or to enter into any express or impliedcontract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may becommitted”, 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 afalse document with intent to cause damage or injury to the publicor to any person. Therefore, making the false documents is sinequa non. Identical question came to be considered by this Courtin the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. (supra). Whileinterpreting Sections 464 and 471 IPC and other relevant provisionsof IPC, in paragraphs 13 and 14, it is observed and held as under:- “13. The condition precedent for an offence underSections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent forforgery is making a false document (or false electronic recordor part thereof). This case does not relate to any falseelectronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the firstaccused, in executing and registering the two sale deedspurporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did notbelong to him), can be said to have made and executed falsedocuments, in collusion with the other accused.

14. An analysis of Section 464 of the Penal Code showsthat it divides false documents into three categories:

1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makesor executes a document with the intention of causing it to bebelieved that such document was made or executed by someother person, or by the authority of some other person, by whomor by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.

2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, bycancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any materialpart, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executedby either himself or any other person.

3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causesany person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing thatsuch person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind;or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, knowthe contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.

ABC

D

EF

G

H

In short, a person is said to have made a “false document”, if (i)he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else orauthorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered adocument; or (iii) he obtained a document by practising deception,or from a person not in control of his senses.”

A

B5.9 In the present case, no false document has been produced.What was produced was the Memorandum and no otherdocuments were produced. Even according to the originalcomplainant, the Memorandum and the claim made at the time ofregistration of the Party that it has adopted a Memorandumaccepting the secularism, the same was contrary to the ConstitutionCof the Party produced before the Gurudwara Election Commission.Making a false claim and creating and producing the falsedocument both are different and distinct.

5.10 Now, so far as the offences under Sections 466, 467, and 468IPC are concerned, on the face of it, it cannot be said that anyDcase is made out for the said offences. Section 466 is with respectto forgery of record of court or of public register. Section 467 iswith respect to forgery of valuable security, will etc. Section 468relates to forgery for the purposes of cheating. Section 471 willbe applicable in case of using as genuine a forged document.

E

5.11 Looking to the averments and allegations in the complaint andeven the material/evidence collected/ recorded during the courseof the inquiry and even assuming the complaint’s averments to betrue, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 420,465, 466, 467, 468, 471 are not at all made out.

F

5.12 At this stage, it is also required to be noted that even theapplication under Section 29-A of the Act, 1951 was made as faras back in the year 1989 and thereafter even the respondent No.1 filed the complaint before the ECI, which came to be dismissedby the ECI and thereafter the present complaint has been filed inGthe year 2009, i.e., after a period of 20 years from the date offiling of the application for registration under Section 29-A of theAct, 1951, which was made in the year 1989.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, andeven assuming the complaint’s averments to be true, do not make outthe ingredients of the offences, for which the learned Trial Court hasHpassed the summoning order.

Under the circumstances to continue the criminal proceedingsagainst the appellants – accused arising out of the complaint and toface the trial by the accused as per the summoning order is nothing butan abuse of process of law and court and this is a fit case to quash theentire criminal proceedings arising out of the complaint filed by therespondent No. 1 including the summoning order passed by the learnedTrial Court.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, presentappeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt dismissing the revision application is hereby quashed and set aside.

The order passed by the Trial Court dated 04.11.2019 summoningthe appellants – accused to face the trial for the offences under Sections420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B IPC is hereby quashed andset aside.

Present appeals are accordingly allowed. However, before parting,we may observe that we have set aside the summoning order on theaforesaid grounds only and we have not expressed anything on theConstitution of the Party - Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal) and the presentorder shall not affect the pending proceedings before the High Court ofDelhi, which is reported to be pending against the order passed by theECI.

With these observations, present appeals are allowed.

Ankit Gyan(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh and Mahendra Yadav, LCRAs)

Appeals allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H