Vishal Noble Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 85 – S 482 CrPC, Ss 420, 467 IPC

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 – In recent years the machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving their oblique motives and agenda. Courts have therefore to be vigilant against such tendencies and ensure that acts of omission and commission having an adverse impact on the fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud – while entertaining an application for quashing an FIR at the initial stage, the test to be applied is whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offence -Criminal cases where the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuation of a criminal prosecution should be quashed. [Referred to Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 ] (Para 22)

Non- Appearance of complainant – complainant has made grave allegations against the appellants herein and on whose behalf a charge-sheet has also been filed against such allegations has failed to appear before this Court to justify the same. Such acts would not only cause deep fissures and mistrust between people and also 14 unnecessarily burden the law courts and the criminal justice system – The non-appearance of the second respondent before this Court is indicative of his prejudicial attitude and temperament and his inability to justify any of the allegations against the appellants herein and therefore his absence in this proceeding. (Para 22-23)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 467 – The following ingredients are essential for commission of the offence under Section 467 IPC: 1. the document in question so forged; 2. the accused who forged it; 3. the document is one of the kinds enumerated in the aforementioned section – Referred to Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 (Para 18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 420 – There are two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first class of acts he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver property to any person. The second class of acts is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases, the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but need not be fraudulent or dishonest. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to subsequently keep a promise, one cannot presume that he all along had a culpable intention to break the promise from the beginning – Referred to Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 (Para 18)

Leave a Comment