The Supreme Court recently ruled that offences mentioned in a chargesheet cannot be based merely on unsubstantiated allegations of connivance; they must have some substantial basis.

A bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol further observed that if intent is prima facie absent in one offence within a transaction, it is also absent for other offences in the same transaction.

These remarks were part of a judgment delivered in an appeal challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s April 28, 2017, order, which refused to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The FIR accused five individuals of forging the Power of Attorney of the original seller and registering the property in their name. Charges were filed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

One accused, Dinesh Kumar, an official of the Housing Board, petitioned the High Court to quash the FIR, arguing that executing the sale deed was part of his official duties and protected under Section 83 of the Madhya Pradesh Girha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972, akin to Section 197 of the CrPC.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court referred to various precedents interpreting Section 197, including Manohar Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1983), Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P. & Ors. (1997), and A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma & Anr (2023). These rulings state that a public servant can only be prosecuted if the alleged offence is directly and reasonably connected with their official duties and requires sanction for prosecution. Acts integral to the performance of public duties are protected under Section 197(1) of the CrPC.

Applying these principles, the Court found that Dinesh Kumar’s claim that his actions fell within his official duties was covered by Section 83 of the Madhya Pradesh Girha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972.

The Court noted, “There is no evidence beyond mere allegations of connivance to indicate that the appellant acted in dereliction of duty. The High Court, therefore, erred in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings.

On the offence of cheating:

The Court examined whether the offence of cheating, as outlined in Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B. (2022), was established. It reiterated that cheating requires a false representation, prior knowledge of its falsity, dishonest intent, and inducement to act or abstain from acting.The Court observed,

There is no evidence to suggest, even prima facie, that the appellant met any of these criteria. No intent to defraud can be attributed to him in connection with the allegedly forged Power of Attorney.

On criminal conspiracy:

The Court referred to Bilal Hajar v. State (2019), which held that conspiracy requires a meeting of minds to commit an illegal act. It found no evidence that Dinesh Kumar had knowledge of the forgery or participated in any conspiracy.”

If intent is absent for one offence in the transaction, it is absent for others as well. No criminal offence can be attributed to the appellant without intent,” the Court held.

Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), which laid down the criteria for quashing FIRs when no prima facie offence is made out, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment.

Case Details: DINESH KUMAR MATHUR v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR. I