Supreme Court of India judgment against a High Court decision that refused to quash an FIR (First Information Report) and subsequent criminal proceedings. The charges against Mathur, an official of the Housing Board, stemmed from allegations of connivance and assistance in forging a Power of Attorney to illegally transfer a property. The Supreme Court examined the applicability of official duty protection under the M.P. Housing Board Act and the Criminal Procedure Code and found no prima facie evidence of the required criminal intent for the alleged offenses, ultimately allowing the appeal and quashing the criminal proceedings.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 197, 482 – Penal Code, 1860, Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B r/w 34 – Madhya Pradesh Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972, Section 83 – Quashing of FIR – Cheating – Public servant – Protection of action taken in good faith – Prosecution of public servant – One ‘A’, who has been made co-accused in the complaint, has allegedly, in connivance with other persons including members of the Housing Board, forged the Power of Attorney of the original seller in his favour and got the said property registered in his own name – The appellant is an official of the Housing Board and it is said that the act perpetrated by ‘A’ was with his aid and assistance – Held that the appellant’s official duty would be in furtherance of the act and, therefore, would be covered by wordings of Section 83 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 – There is no inkling in the slightest, apart from alleging connivance to suggest that the appellant had played a role, in dereliction of his duty – Nothing on record to suggest, even prima facie, that any of the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are met in the case of the present appellant – No intent can be hinted to, where the appellant had willfully, with the intent to defraud, acted upon the allegedly forged Power of Attorney – Neither has anything been brought in the chargesheet upon completion of the investigation to show that the requirements of Section 120-B have been met – Nor that the appellant had any information or knowledge about the subject Power of Attorney being forged – Sections when put into a chargesheet, cannot be based on bald assertions of connivance, there must be a substance which is entirely lacking in the present case -. If the intent is on the face of it is absent qua one of the offences in the same transaction, it is absent in respect of the other offence as well, viz., Section 467, 468 – Impugned judgment passed by the High Court liable to be quashed and set aside – All proceedings arising from the subject FIR and subsequent proceedings stand closed.
(Para 11 to 13)
Dinesh Kumar Mathur v. State Of M.P. And Others
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 16: (DoJ 02-01-2025)
