Forging Spouse’s signature on child’s passport application does not amount to criminal offence of cheating (420 IPC) / forgery (468 IPC) under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

Does forging Spouse’s signature on child’s passport application amount to criminal offence of cheating (420 IPC) / forgery (468 IPC) under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code?

The act of forging a Spouse’s signature on the passport application of the child would not amount to the offence of 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property) under the Indian Penal Code as there is no loss/damage/injury caused to the person whose signature was forged and also dishonest intention on the part of the parent forging the signature is missing. Further since the essential requirements of the offence of cheating are missing, the offence of 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating ) also cannot be made out.

The Supreme Court has clarified the aforesaid issue in the case titled Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. Versus State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr (Criminal Appeal No 335/2024). The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment have reproduced below.

16. The crux of Respondent No. 2’s allegations is that the Appellants purportedly forged his signature on the passport application submitted to obtain the minor child’s passport. Assuming the allegation to be accurate, it would undoubtedly constitute an unlawful act. However, as set out earlier, it is crucial to underscore that not every unlawful act automatically qualifies as ‘deceitful’. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the Appellant – wife seems to have breached the notion of mutual marital trust and unauthorizedly projected Respondent No. 2’s consent in obtaining the passport for their minor child. It, however, remains a question as to how such an act can be labelled as ‘deceitful’. The motivations prompting either of the Appellants to procure a passport for the minor child were not rooted in deceit. Furthermore, the grant of passport to the minor child did not confer any benefit upon the Appellant wife, nor did it result in any loss or damage to Respondent No. 2. In the same vein, Appellant No. 2, being the father of the Appellant – wife and assisting in securing the passport for the child, derived no direct or indirect benefit from this action.

17. In this context, the critical inquiry arises: how does the act of forging signatures on the passport application, aimed at obtaining the minor child’s passport, amount to inducing Respondent No. 2 to relinquish any property or valuable security? Examining the situation, it becomes apparent that the aforementioned act does not entail inducement leading to the parting of any property by Respondent No. 2. The nature of the property which can be claimed to have been relinquished or the tangible loss, damage, or injury, if any, suffered by Respondent No. 2 are not visible at all. The unequivocal response to these queries is clearly in the negative.

20. The background of this case and the chronology of events squarely indicate that it is the touchstone of a marital dispute. The insinuations made by Respondent No. 2, even if they possess an iota of truth, have miserably failed to prima facie establish the elements of ‘cheating’ and thus, the accusation made against the Appellants under Section 420 IPC must fall flat.

23. The offences of ‘forgery’ and ‘cheating’ intersect and converge, as the act of forgery is committed with the intent to deceive or cheat an individual. Having extensively addressed the aspect of dishonest intent in the context of ‘cheating’ under Section 420 IPC, it stands established that no dishonest intent can be made out against the Appellants. Our focus therefore will now be confined, for the sake of brevity, to the first element, i.e., the preparation of a false document. The determination of whether the Appellants prepared a false document, by forging Respondent No. 2’s signature, however, cannot be even prima facie ascertained at this juncture. Considering the primary ingredient of dishonest intention itself could not be established against the Appellants, the offence of forgery too, has no legs to stand.