The Uttarakhand High Court has set aside a trial court order and a revisional court judgment in a criminal case, holding that lower courts had wrongly confined allegations to cheating, even though the material on record also prima facie indicated possible offences of forgery and harm to reputation.
High Court's Observations
Justice Alok Mahra observed that the courts below had adopted an unduly narrow approach by limiting the case to Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), despite allegations involving Sections 467, 468, and 469. The court emphasised that the lower courts failed to consider the broader implications of the documentary evidence presented.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR lodged by Bhanu Prakash Tiwari, a resident of Almora, against Swati Tiwari. Tiwari alleged that Swati had fraudulently manipulated government records and falsely shown him as her husband, despite no marital relationship existing between them. The FIR was filed at Ranikhet police station in June 2017.
Tiwari stated that he learned in December 2016 that Swati, a resident of Chilianaula in Ranikhet, had submitted a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Almora, claiming she had become acquainted with him in January 2014 and that they later began an affair. The FIR further alleged that Swati claimed they married on December 1, 2014, and that she was pregnant.
Bhanu also alleged: “She recorded my name in official records as the father of her 12-year-old son, who was actually born of her first marriage, by replacing the name of the child’s biological father.” He said this deliberate misrepresentation caused serious prejudice and irreparable damage to his reputation and social standing.
Lower Court Proceedings
After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet only under IPC Section 420. The trial court in May 2022 took cognisance and framed charges solely for cheating. Bhanu challenged this order in revision, but the Ranikhet Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the plea in August 2022, observing that at the stage of framing charges, the court only needed to form a prima facie opinion and could not conduct a mini trial.
High Court's Intervention
Before the High Court, Bhanu relied on documents including a maternity card, Aadhaar card, LIC records, and gas connection papers, in which his name was allegedly recorded as Swati’s husband. The High Court noted that Swati did not file any counter affidavit and that no one appeared on her behalf on the last two hearing dates.
Justice Mahra said the allegations were not confined to cheating alone and observed that repeated and consistent entries across multiple independent documents, if manipulated or falsely procured, could not be treated as an isolated act of deception. The court said such entries indicated “a continuing course of conduct” that could attract offences beyond IPC Section 420.
Court's Decision
The court held that both the trial court and the revisional court had failed to consider the nature of the allegations and documentary material in the correct perspective, and termed the exercise mechanical due to non-application of mind. It remanded the matter to the trial court to reconsider the entire material afresh and pass a reasoned order on framing of charges, including under IPC Sections 467, 468, and 469 if made out from the record. The High Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits and directed the trial court to proceed independently.
