REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1116 OF 2023

(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 7872 OF 2021)

Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal …Appellant(s)

Versus

Balwant Singh Khera and Ors. …Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1118_OF 2023

(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 8257 OF 2021)

Dr. Daljit Singh Cheema …Appellant(s)

Versus

Balwant Singh Khera and Ors. …Respondent(s)

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 1 of 30

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1117 OF 2023

(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 7950 OF 2021)

Shri Parkash Singh Badal …Appellant(s)

Versus

Balwant Singh Khera and Ors. …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court

of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No.

54161 of 2019 by which the High Court has dismissed the

said application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has

not quashed and set aside the summoning order passed

by the learned Trial Court summoning the appellants

herein – original writ petitioners under Sections 420, 465,

466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B IPC and other

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 2 of 30

subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, the original

accused – appellants herein have preferred the present

appeals.

2.The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell

are as under:-

2.1Initially, a private complaint was filed by the

respondent No. 1 herein – original complainant before the

learned ACJM, Hoshiarpur being Complaint No. 23 of

2009 for the offences under Sections 463, 465, 466, 467,

468, 471, 191, 192 of IPC, 1860 against Shri Sukhbir

Singh Badal, Shri Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa, Shri Surinder

Singh 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 arrayed as an accused.

2.2It was alleged in the complaint that while complying

with the requirements of Section 29-A(5) of the

Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred

to as “Act, 1951”), an affidavit was filed in the shape of an

undertaking with the Election Commission of India (ECI),

which conflicted with the affidavit / undertaking given to

the Gurudwara Election Commission (GEC).

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 3 of 30

2.3It was alleged that the said affidavit was sworn by

Shri Parkash Singh Badal, the then President, Shiromani

Akali Dal (SAD) stating that the Party was adhering to the

principle of secularism. Under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act,

1925, only Sikhs can become voters or contest elections

to Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC).

That this restricts membership along religious lines and

cannot said to be secular. It was alleged that the

Constitution submitted to GEC in conformity with the Sikh

Gurdwaras Act, 1925 is contrary to the one submitted to

ECI as it shows that the Party is engaged in religious

activities while giving an undertaking to ECI that it shall

bear allegiance to the principles of secularism. That the

SAD had no right to function as a political party as its

office bearers are non-secular. Therefore, the SAD has

filed a false Constitution with ECI to gain recognition as a

political party.

2.4That the learned Trial Court held the inquiry under

Section 202 Cr.P.C. and recorded the statement of the

concerned witnesses. The original complainant filed an

application before the learned Trial Court with a prayer

that Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal and Dr. Daljit Singh

Cheema be summoned as witnesses and asked to

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 4 of 30

produce the documents asked for. It was further

submitted that the complainant does not want to pursue

the complaint against them and their names be stuck

down from the title of the complaint.

2.5The said application was filed on 06.04.2011. By

order dated 26.08.2011, the learned Trial Court ordered

the aforesaid two persons to be summoned as witnesses

along with the record. That the primary revision

application before the first revisional court – learned

Sessions Court came to be dismissed observing that the

revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory order

and that no order has been passed by the learned Trial

Court on the application dated 06.04.2011 of the

complainant as regards not pursuing the complaint

against them. That the complainant again filed an

application dated 04.07.2014 before the learned Trial

Court in Complaint No. 23 of 2009 submitting that he does

not want to pursue the application dated 06.04.2011.

2.6The second application dated 06.08.2014 filed by

the appellants herein - original writ petitioners under

Section 315(1)(a) and (b) of Cr.P.C. before the learned

ACJM came to be dismissed. The appellants herein filed

revision application before the High Court seeking

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 5 of 30

quashing of the orders passed by the learned Trial Court

by which they were summoned as witnesses, which came

to be disposed of by the High Court, setting aside the

summoning of the witnesses while allowing the record to

be submitted through duly authorized person. That

thereafter the inquiry proceeded further and the evidence

of the relevant witnesses came to be recorded.

2.7That after a period of 09 years after the original

complaint, the complainant moved an amendment

application on 28.04.2017 for amendment of the

complaint, seeking to introduce substantial changes to the

complaint as well as five more persons to be added as

accused and certain offences were also to be added in

the complaint. Shri Parkash Singh Badal came to be

added as an accused in the amendment sought. The said

application for amendment came to be dismissed by the

learned Trial Court vide order dated 07.06.2017.

2.8The original complainant challenged the said order

dated 07.06.2017 before the High Court, which was

subsequently withdrawn with liberty to approach the Trial

Court. That on 08.08.2017, the original complainant –

respondent No. 1 herein filed second application for

amendment. The complainant’s second application for

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 6 of 30

amendment of the complaint again came to be dismissed

by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 09.11.2017.

That thereafter by order dated 04.11.2019, impugned

before the High Court, the learned Trial Court passed

summoning orders against the appellants to face the trial

for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468,

471 read with 120B IPC. At this stage, it is required to be

noted that by the said summoning order, even Shri

Parkash Singh Badal, who was not arrayed as an

accused in the complaint, has now been arrayed as an

accused, has been summoned to face the trial for the

aforesaid offences.

2.9Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

summoning order, the appellants herein preferred the

present application before the High Court under Section

482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint as well as

the summoning order dated 04.11.2019. By the

impugned judgment and order, the High Court has

dismissed the said application and has refused to quash

the criminal proceedings as well as the summoning order.

Hence the present appeals.

3.Shri K.V. Viswanathan, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 7 of 30

submitted that the complaint impugned before the High

Court is as such nothing but an abuse of process of law

and the court and therefore, the Hon’ble High Court ought

to have quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of

the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1.

3.1It is submitted that the complaint dated 20.02.2009,

filed by the respondent No. 1, has been filed belatedly

after 20 years of the 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 by way of

amendment, with effect nom 15.03.1989. This

amendment, inter alia, prescribed that a political party

Memorandum seeking registration, shall either file a

Memorandum or the Rules and Regulations of the Body

(namely the Constitution), by whatever name called,

containing the specific provision that the Association or

Body shall bear true faith and allegiance to the principles

of Socialism, Secularism and Democracy. It is submitted

that Section 29-A did not require an amendment to the

Constitution.

3.2It is submitted that the Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal)

[SAD(B)] applied for registration under the said provision

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 8 of 30

by way of an application dated 14.08.1989. The

registration of SAD(B) was challenged through a

reference letter sent by the respondent No. 1, Balwant

Singh Khera to the Election Commission of India. After

receiving the comments of SAD(B), the Secretariat of the

ECI informed the counsel for respondent No. 1 that the

challenge was not sustainable. The order passed by the

ECI was intimated vide communication dated 10.01.2008.

3.3 It is submitted that thereafter having failed to get

the registration of the Party cancelled, the respondent No.

1 has lodged the present complaint dated 20.02.2009,

which is belatedly filed after 20 years of the registration

and is nothing but an abuse of process of law and court.

3.4It is submitted that the very premise of the complaint

was that the undertaking given to the ECI while complying

with Section 29-A of the Act, 1951 conflicted with the

Constitution submitted to the Gurudwara Election

Commission insofar as the Party was engaged in religious

activities, while giving false declaration on secularism. It is

submitted that according to respondent No. 1, as per the

Constitution of the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak

Committee, only a person believing in Sikhism and a

particular religion can contest the election. It is submitted

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 9 of 30

that as per the respondent No. 1, the clauses in the

Constitution of the Party cannot be said to be believing in

secularism and therefore, according to respondent No. 1,

while submitting the declaration under Section 29-A of the

Act, 1951, a false and contrary claim was made, it is

submitted that as such the aforesaid has no substance.

3.5It is submitted that the management of a religious

place is a secular act. The Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 is

concerned with better management of the gurudwaras

and participating in elections for Shiromani Gurudwara

Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) is not a non-secular act.

It is submitted that even while believing in a particular

religion, a person / Party can be secular. Reliance is

placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Sardar

Sarup Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.,

AIR 1959 SC 860; 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 Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954

SCR 1005.

3.6It is submitted that being religious is not antithetical

to secularism. One can be religious as well as secular in

outlook. It is submitted that Party's membership is open

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 10 of 30

to all. It is submitted that therefore, the basis on which the

complaint is filed with itself is baseless.

3.7It is further submitted by Shri Viswanathan, learned

Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants

that even otherwise on merits also, no case is made out

for the offence for which the learned Trial Court has

summoned the appellants to face the trial, namely, under

Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B

IPC.

3.8It is submitted that so far as the offence of cheating

alleged is concerned, no offence of cheating as defined in

Section 415 IPC, is made out. It is submitted that the

ingredients for the offence of cheating has not been made

out. It is submitted that even in the complaint, offence

under Section 420 IPC was not even mentioned. Later, a

proposed amendment with a view to introduce Section

420 IPC and to add the more persons as accused was

made, which came to be rejected by a speaking order.

The matter was taken to the Hon'ble High Court but the

criminal revision was withdrawn. The second application

for the same relief moved before the Learned Magistrate

was also dismissed by just a well-reasoned order.

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 11 of 30

3.9It is submitted that even the offence of forgery has

not been made out. It is submitted that there is no

reference to any specific document either in complaint or

in the preliminary evidence. It is submitted that there is no

allegation and/or a case is made out that any false

document was created and produced. It is further

submitted that as such the appellants had absolutely no

role in filing of the application for registration. It is

submitted that Parkash Singh Badal was not the President

of the Party at the time of making the application. Neither

Sukhbir Singh Badal nor Daljit Singh Cheema was holding

any office for the Party at that time. It is submitted that

even otherwise, there was no false affidavit nor any

forged document had been attached alongwith the

application for registration, which was made in

accordance with law. It is submitted that a careful perusal

of Section 29-A of the Act, 1951 would show that a

political party seeking registration could either file its

Constitution or a Memorandum incorporating the

declaration that it shall bear true faith and allegiance to

the principle of Secularism. It is submitted that the copy of

Constitution was not attached and only a copy of the

Memorandum adopted by the Party, in terms of Section

29-A of the Act, 1951 was attached with the application. It

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 12 of 30

is submitted that therefore, the ingredients of cheating,

forgery are not at all made.

3.10It is further submitted by Shri Viswanathan, learned

Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants

that so far as Parkash Singh Badal is concerned, the

mandatory requirement of inquiry under Section 202

Cr.P.C. has not been followed before issuance of

summons. It is submitted that neither, Parkash Singh

Badal was arrayed as an accused in the complaint nor at

the time of 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 decision of this Court

in the case of Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz

Investments and Holdings Limited and Ors., (2019) 16

SCC 610.

3.11It is further submitted that while considering the

revision application, the High Court has not properly

appreciated and/or considered that the summoning order

was vitiated because of the failure to consider the

question as to whether the application discloses the

commission of the offences alleged or the ingredients of

the offences. Reliance has been placed on the decisions

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 13 of 30

of this Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors.

Vs. State of Bilar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751 (Paras

13-14, 21); Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 (Para 48); and

Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda

and Ors., (2015) 12 SCC 420 (Para 20).

3.12Making above submissions, it is prayed to allow the

present appeals.

4.While opposing the present appeals, Shri Prashant

Bhushan, learned counsel and Shri C.U. Singh, learned

senior counsel have made the following submissions:-

4.1That in the facts and circumstances of the case and

considering the material on record and/or evidence

recorded during the course of the inquiry under Section

202 Cr.P.C. and therefore, when the learned Trial Court

was satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against

the accused for the offences under Sections 420, 465,

466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B IPC, neither the

learned Trial Court has committed any error in

summoning the accused to face the trial for the aforesaid

offences nor the Hon’ble High Court has committed any

error in disposing the revision application.

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 14 of 30

4.2It is submitted that as such the impugned order

passed by the High Court is just within the parameters of

the limitation of the High Court while exercising the

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thereafter when

the Hon’ble High Court has dismissed the revision

application and has refused to quash the summoning

order and the criminal proceedings while exercising the

limited jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the same

may not be interfered with by this Court.

4.3It is further submitted by Shri Prashant Bhushan,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original

complainant that the case is a serious one of fraud,

forgery and cheating committed by the accused –

appellants herein in order to obtain the registration of the

Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal), as a political party. It is

submitted that the witnesses have stated that a fabricated

document presenting it as the Party’s “Memorandum” or

“Rules and Regulations” was submitted to the Election

Commission of India in order to project compliance with

Section 29-A of the Act, 1951 and thereby, obtained

registration and its benefits.

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 15 of 30

4.4It is submitted that as per the witnesses examined

during the course of inquiry, Shri Parkash Singh Badal

had issued instructions to the concerned persons to file

such document.

4.5It is submitted that the petitioners- appellants herein

Shri Parkash Singh Badal had submitted a different

Constitution before the Gurdwara Election Commission

(GEC), which was in conformity with the Sikh Gurdwaras

Act, 1925 to seek election to the Shiromani Gurdwara

Prabandhak Committee (SGPC). It is submitted that the

eligibility criteria to contest the election of the SGPC and

the undertakings before the ECI and GEC are contrary to

each other. It is submitted that therefore, a secular image

as a political party was being projected before the ECI,

while before the GEC, it was projected that only restricted

membership of only adult Singhs and Singhnis / baptized

Sikhs, was permitted. It is submitted that, thus, a falsified

Constitution was knowingly filed by the appellants before

the ECI. It is submitted that the continuing nature of fraud

and the roles of appellants have also been brought out by

the witnesses and through evidence collected during the

inquiry collected through the pre-summoning stage before

the learned Magistrate's Court, resulting in its summoning

order.

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 16 of 30

4.6It is further submitted by Shri Prashant Bhushan,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original

complainant that at the stage of summoning, the

allegations in the complaint alone are required to be

considered and it is required to be considered whether the

allegations in the complaint disclose cognizable offences

committed by the appellants or not. It is submitted that a

complaint 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 a speaking 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 Court decides

to summon or not to summon those involved in the

offences. It is submitted that, therefore, once on the basis

of the material collected during the course of the inquiry, if

the Magistrate is satisfied that a prima facie case is made

out against the accused, summoning order be issued

against the accused to face the trial.

4.7It is submitted that in the present case by submitting

the false claim of secularism just contrary to the relevant

clauses in the Constitution of the Party, a clear case is

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 17 of 30

made out for the offence under Section 415/420 IPC. It is

submitted that it is a clear case of cheating and dishonest

inducement. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the original complainant that even

the case for forgery is made out. It is submitted that as

per the definition of forgery, “whoever makes any false

documents with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may

be committed by such persons is said to have committed

the offence of forgery”. It is submitted that therefore, in

the present case, a clear case of forgery has been made

out.

4.8Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the

appellants, more particularly, by the appellant – Parkash

Singh Badal that as he was originally not named in the

complaint and even at the time of inquiry under Section

202 Cr.P.C., he was not named in the inquiry and

therefore, the summoning order is vitiated on the ground

that the mandatory requirement of inquiry under Section

202 Cr.P.C. has not been complied with, is concerned, it

is submitted that on the basis of the material / evidence

collected during the course of inquiry, if the Magistrate

finds that a person not named in the complaint has also

committed the offence, the Magistrate is always justified in

summoning that person as an accused. It is submitted

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 18 of 30

that even otherwise on non-compliance of the requirement

under Section 202 Cr.P.C. of holding the inquiry, the

summoning order on merits cannot be said to have been

vitiated. Shri Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the original complainant made elaborate

submissions on what can be said to be secularism and/or

whether the appellants believed in secularism or not

and/or the Party believes in secularism or not. However,

for the reasons hereinabove, we do not propose to go into

such larger question and therefore, we are not dealing

with the same elaborately.

4.9Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss

the present appeals.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties

at length. We have also perused and considered the

averments and allegations in the complaint dated

20.02.2009 as well as the application and the

Memorandum annexed with the application filed for

registration of the Party, while submitting the application

under Section 29-A of the Act, 1951. We have also gone

through the summoning order passed by the learned Trial

Court.

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 19 of 30

5.1At the outset, it is required to be noted that the

appellants herein are summoned by the learned Trial

Court to face the trial for the offences under Sections 420,

465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC.

5.2The main allegation in the complaint was that in the

year 1989 and as per the Constitution prevailing at the

relevant time, i.e., in the year 1989, Shiromani Akali Dal

(Badal) was engaged in non-secularism but they

contested and got seats in the elections to the SGPC,

therefore, the Memorandum annexed with the application

for registration under Section 29-A of the Act, 1951 was

false.

5.3From the material on record, more particularly, the

application for registration of the Shiromani Akali Dal

(Badal) under Section 29-A of the Act, 1951, it appears

that as per the requirement under Section 29-A, that a

political party should deal in secularism and socialism, a

Memorandum to that effect was produced. Neither the

“Constitution” of the Party nor any other “Rules or

Regulations” were produced. It was stated in the

application that the Party had adopted a Memorandum to

the effect that “Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal) shall bear true

faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 20 of 30

established and to the principles of socialism, secularism

and democracy and would uphold the sovereignty, unity

and integrity of lndia”. What was produced was the copy

of the Memorandum. In light of the above, the offence for

which the accused are summoned to face the trial are

required to be considered.

5.4Appellants are summoned to face the trial for the

offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471

read with 120B IPC. The relevant provisions are as

under:-

“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing

delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and

thereby dishonestly induces the person

deceived to deliver any property to any

person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole

or any part of a valuable security, or anything

which is signed or sealed, and which is

capable of being converted into a valuable

security, shall be punished with imprisonment

of either description for a term which may

extend to seven years, and shall also be liable

to fine.

465. Punishment for forgery.—Whoever

commits forgery shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to two years, or with fine, or

with both.

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 21 of 30

466. Forgery of record of Court or of

public register, etc.—Whoever forges a

document or an electronic record, purporting

to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of

Justice, or a register of birth, baptism,

marriage or burial, or a register kept by a

public servant as such, or a certificate or

document purporting to be made by a public

servant in his official capacity, or an authority

to institute or defend a suit, or to take any

proceedings therein, or to confess judgment,

or a power of attorney, shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to seven years, and shall

also be liable to fine.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this

section “register” includes any list, data or

record of any entries maintained in the

electronic form as defined in clause (r) of sub-

section (1) of Section 2 of the Information

Technology Act, 2000.

467. Forgery of valuable security, will,

etc.—Whoever forges a document which

purports to be a valuable security or a will, or

an authority to adopt a son, or which purports

to give authority to any person to make or

transfer any valuable security, or to receive

the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or

to receive or deliver any money, movable

property, or valuable security, or any

document purporting to be an acquittance or

receipt acknowledging the payment of money,

or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of

any movable property or valuable security,

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 22 of 30

shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or

with imprisonment of either description for a

term which may extend to ten years, and shall

also be liable to fine.

468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.—

Whoever commits forgery, intending that the

document or electronic record forged shall be

used for the purpose of cheating, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to

seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

471. Using as genuine a forged

document or electronic record.—Whoever

fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine

any document or electronic record which he

knows or has reason to believe to be a forged

document or electronic record, shall be

punished in the same manner as if he had

forged such document or electronic record.”

5.5Now, so far as the offence under Section 420 of the

IPC is concerned, “whoever cheats and thereby

dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any

property to any person,……………” shall be said to have

committed the offence of cheating and shall be punished.

Cheating is defined under Section 415 IPC, which reads

as under:-

415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving

any person, fraudulently or dishonestly

induces the person so deceived to deliver any

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 23 of 30

property to any person, or to consent that any

person shall retain any property, or

intentionally induces the person so deceived

to do or omit to do anything which he would

not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and

which act or omission causes or is likely to

cause damage or harm to that person in body,

mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

Explanation.—A dishonest concealment

of facts is a deception within the meaning of

this section.”

5.6Looking 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.

5.7Now, so far as the offence under Section 465 is

concerned. As per Section 465, “whoever commits

forgery shall be punished for the offence under Section

465”. Forgery is defined under Section 463, which reads

as under:-

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 24 of 30

“463. Forgery.—Whoever makes any

false documents or false electronic record or

part of a document or electronic record, 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, commits

forgery.”

5.8Therefore, 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 a false

document with intent to cause damage or injury to the

public or to any person. Therefore, making the false

documents is sine qua non. Identical question came to be

considered by this Court in the case of Mohammed

Ibrahim & Ors. (supra). While interpreting Sections 464

and 471 IPC and other relevant provisions of IPC, in

paragraphs 13 and 14, it is observed and held as under:-

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 25 of 30

“13. The condition precedent for an

offence under Sections 467 and 471 is

forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is

making a false document (or false electronic

record or part thereof). This case does not

relate to any false electronic record.

Therefore, the question is whether the first

accused, in executing and registering the two

sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even

if it is assumed that it did not belong to him),

can be said to have made and executed false

documents, in collusion with the other

accused.

14. An analysis of Section 464 of the

Penal Code shows that it divides false

documents into three categories:

1. The first is where a person

dishonestly or fraudulently makes or

executes a document with the intention

of causing it to be believed that such

document was made or executed by

some other person, or by the authority

of some other person, by whom or by

whose authority he knows it was not

made or executed.

2. The second is where a person

dishonestly or fraudulently, by

cancellation or otherwise, alters a

document in any material part, without

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 26 of 30

lawful authority, after it has been made

or executed by either himself or any

other person.

3. The third is where a person

dishonestly or fraudulently causes any

person to sign, execute or alter a

document knowing that such person

could not by reason of (a)

unsoundness of mind; or (b)

intoxication; or (c) deception practised

upon him, know the contents of the

document or the nature of the

alteration.

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 or

authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered

or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a

document by practising deception, or from a

person not in control of his senses.”

5.9In the present case, no false document has been

produced. 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

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 27 of 30

produced before the Gurudwara Election Commission.

Making a false claim and creating and producing the false

document both are different and distinct.

5.10Now, so far as the offences under Sections 466,

467, and 468 IPC are concerned, on the face of it, it

cannot be said that any case is made out for the said

offences. Section 466 is with respect to forgery of record

of court or of public register. Section 467 is with respect

to forgery of valuable security, will etc. Section 468

relates to forgery for the purposes of cheating. Section

471 will be applicable in case of using as genuine a

forged document.

5.11Looking 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 under Sections 420,

465, 466, 467, 468, 471 are not at all made out.

5.12At this stage, it is also required to be noted that

even the application under Section 29-A of the Act, 1951

was made as far as back in the year 1989 and thereafter

even the respondent No. 1 filed the complaint before the

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 28 of 30

ECI, which came to be dismissed by the ECI and

thereafter the present complaint has been filed in the year

2009, i.e., after a period of 20 years from the date of filing

of the application for registration under Section 29-A of

the Act, 1951, which was made in the year 1989.

6.In view of the above and for the reasons stated

above, and even assuming the complaint’s averments to

be true, do not make out the ingredients of the offences,

for which the learned Trial Court has passed the

summoning order.

Under the circumstances to continue the criminal

proceedings against the appellants – accused arising out

of the complaint and to face the trial by the accused as

per the summoning order is nothing but an abuse of

process of law and court and this is a fit case to quash the

entire criminal proceedings arising out of the complaint

filed by the respondent No. 1 including the summoning

order passed by the learned Trial Court.

7.In view of the above and for the reasons stated

above, present appeals succeed. The impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing

the revision application is hereby quashed and set aside.

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 29 of 30

The order passed by the Trial Court dated 04.11.2019

summoning the appellants – accused to face the trial for

the offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471

read with 120B IPC is hereby quashed and set aside.

Present appeals are accordingly allowed. However,

before parting, we may observe that we have set aside

the summoning order on the aforesaid grounds only and

we have not expressed anything on the Constitution of the

Party - Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal) and the present order

shall not affect the pending proceedings before the High

Court of Delhi, which is reported to be pending against the

order passed by the ECI.

With these observations, present appeals are

allowed.

………………………………….J.

[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

APRIL 28, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2023

Page 30 of 30