Absence of Deceptive Inducement or Forgery Renders Prosecution Under Sections 420 and 468 IPC Unsustainable

The petitioners entered into a ten-year lease agreement with the complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) to run a hospital in the complainant's building.

The project failed as building plans were not approved by competent authorities.

The complainant initially filed an FIR (Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 233 of 2019), but the police submitted a Final Report concluding the dispute was civil in nature.

Subsequently, the complainant filed Complaint Case No. 3276 of 2023 for the same occurrence.

The Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi, took cognizance and issued summons on February 6, 2024, for offences under Sections 420, 468, and 120B of the IPC.

The petitioners moved the High Court to quash the proceedings, arguing the dispute was purely civil.

1. Whether the allegations in the complaint satisfy the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 420 and forgery under Section 468 of the IPC.

2. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings for a dispute that is essentially civil in nature constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

Section 420 (Cheating), Section 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), and Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the IPC.

Precedent of Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI (2003) 3 SCC 641, which establishes that "deceit" and "inducement to part with property" are essential for Section 420.

Forgery requires the creation of a false document as per the principles relied upon by the court.

The Court referenced Ravindra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand (2023:JHHC:21830) regarding the specific intent required for forgery.

The Court observed that to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be evidence of dishonest misrepresentation that induces a person to part with property.

Upon reviewing the facts, the Court found no allegation that the petitioners deceived the complainant or that the complainant parted with property due to such inducement.

Regarding Section 468 IPC, the Court noted that the core requirement is the commission of "forgery," which necessitates the creation of a "false document."

Since there were no allegations that the petitioners manufactured or altered any documents, the charge of forgery could not stand even with the aid of Section 120B.

The Court further noted the prior police investigation had already termed the matter a civil dispute and the complainant's failure to file a protest petition at that stage.

It concluded that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 3276 of 2023, including the summoning order dated February 6, 2024, against the petitioners.