Section 420 IPC charge unsustainable absent dishonest inducement to deliver property despite allegations of document forgery.

The applicant’s son (Respondent No. 2) filed a complaint alleging that the applicant forged a power of attorney (PoA) dated 30.11.2017

The PoA, purportedly executed by the complainant and his siblings in favor of the applicant to manage joint properties, was allegedly created with the assistance of a notary (co-accused)

Investigation revealed that on the date of the PoA's execution, the purported executants were either abroad or in a different city

Statements from the attesting witnesses and the notary indicated that the document was signed and notarized at the applicant’s sole instance without the executants’ presence

An expert opinion confirmed the notary’s seal on the document

Consequently, the trial court framed charges against the applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with 120-B of the IPC on 04.06.2025

The applicant challenged this order, arguing the document was never used and her signatures were not proven by the State Examiner

1. Whether the trial court was justified in framing charges under Sections 467 and 468 IPC (forgery) when the forged document was allegedly never "used" or the applicant’s signature not conclusively proven at the investigation stage.

2. Whether the ingredients of Section 420 IPC (cheating) are made out in the absence of any allegation regarding the delivery of property or dishonest inducement of the complainant.

The court applied Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., noting that revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent defects or errors of law and should not involve meticulous examination of evidence

It relied on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) regarding the standards for quashing charges

For the offence of cheating, the court applied Sections 415 and 420 of the IPC, holding that fraudulent inducement and delivery of property are sine qua non for the offence, as established in A.M. Mohan v. State (2024)

The court also relied on Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009)

The court also noted that for forgery (Sections 467/468 IPC), the primary requirement at the charging stage is a prima facie suspicion of the creation of a false document

Regarding the forgery charges (Sections 467, 468, 120-B IPC), the court observed that witness statements and the notary’s admission provided a "strong suspicion" that the PoA was prepared while the purported executants were absent

The court rejected the applicant’s plea regarding the lack of handwriting proof, stating such evidentiary values are matters for trial, not for the stage of framing charges

However, concerning Section 420 IPC, the court found that even if the prosecution's allegations were true, there was no evidence that the complainant was "deceived" or "induced" to deliver any property

The court reasoned that since the case involved the mere preparation of a forged document without it being acted upon to cause the delivery of property or alteration of a valuable security, the essential ingredients of Section 415 IPC remained unsatisfied

It held that while there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed with charges of forgery and criminal conspiracy, the charge of cheating was legally unsustainable

The court quashed the charge under Section 420 IPC but affirmed the charges under Sections 467, 468 read with Section 120-B IPC, directing the trial court to proceed with the trial on the remaining counts