A cryptic, unreasoned summoning order cannot sustain prosecution for cheating and forgery.

The petitioner, a senior citizen and brother of Respondent No. 1, challenged the order dated 12 September 2023 by which the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai, issued process against him for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 465 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) in C.C. No. 252/Misc/2021.

The complaint concerned two flats. Flat No. 1 had allegedly been gifted to the petitioner by his uncle through a gift deed dated 9 November 1986, while Flat No. 2 had allegedly been gifted to the petitioner and his wife by their mother through a registered gift deed dated 31 December 2001.

Respondent No. 1 alleged that the gift deeds were forged or fabricated and that the mother had executed the second deed under duress.

Her application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected on 29 December 2022; thereafter, verification was recorded and process was issued.

Neither gift deed had been challenged by Respondent No. 1 before a competent civil court, and her proceedings challenging the petitioner’s society membership had also not resulted in favourable orders.

Whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie case of cheating and forgery under Sections 420, 468 and 465 read with Section 34 of the IPC so as to justify issuance of process against the petitioner.

Whether the Magistrate’s order issuing process, which merely stated that a prima facie case was made out without recording supporting reasons, could be sustained.

The Court applied Sections 420, 465 and 468 read with Section 34 of the IPC, concerning cheating, forgery, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and acts done in furtherance of common intention.

The Magistrate must apply judicial mind and provide reasons demonstrating why the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out; a cryptic assertion that a prima facie case exists is insufficient.

The Court also examined the relevance of the absence of any civil challenge to the registered gift deeds and the substantial delay in initiating criminal proceedings.

The Court found that the complaint arose essentially from a dispute concerning title and entitlement to two flats.

Although Respondent No. 1 made allegations of forgery, fabrication and duress, the complaint contained no supporting documents establishing that the gift deeds were forged or that the petitioner had deceived the complainant.

The gift deeds had been executed in 1986 and 2001, the mother had died in July 2009, and the criminal complaint was filed only in 2021.

Neither deed had been challenged in civil proceedings despite the passage of several years.

These circumstances, coupled with the absence of material beyond bald allegations, failed to disclose even a prima facie case of cheating or forgery.

The Magistrate’s order was also held to be cryptic and unreasoned because it did not explain how the ingredients of Sections 420, 468 and 465 IPC were satisfied.

The order dated 12 September 2023 in C.C. No. 252/Misc/2021 was quashed and set aside.

The writ petition was disposed of and the Rule was made absolute.