New Delhi, Apr 1 A Delhi court has discharged a woman accused of using forged documents to apply for her son's passport, holding that the act does not contain the essential ingredients of the offence charged. It has also cautioned against framing criminal charges in court to settle scores in a matrimonial dispute.
Additional Sessions Judge Bhupinder Singh was hearing a revision application filed by accused Mithila Murada against an order passed by a separate magisterial court on June 5, 2025, where charges were framed against her under sections 420 (cheating), 466 (forgery of record of court or of public register), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating) and 471 (using a fraudulent document as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to the prosecution, the accused is estranged from her husband and had applied for her child's passport during this period of separation. However, she had applied for the passport under the name "Noor Murada", instead of the child's official name, "Noor Bali". It is alleged that on the day of the appointment at the passport office, the accused showed officials a forged birth certificate that only had the name "Noor", but the original certificate had the name "Noor Bali".
"This court finds that even if the prosecution case is accepted at face value, there is no material showing that the petitioner made the alleged forged document, no wrongful gain or loss or dishonest inducement is disclosed, and no material from which knowledge or reason to believe that the document was forged can be prima facie inferred. Continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of law and would subject the petitioner to unwarranted trial in the absence of foundational material," the court said in its order dated March 28, setting aside the impugned order that had framed charges.
It warned against misusing criminal proceedings to settle scores with an estranged spouse, as it said, "It also cannot be ignored that the proceedings arise in the backdrop of matrimonial discord. Criminal law cannot be permitted to become a means to settle personal scores in matrimonial disputes."
"Where foundational ingredients of the alleged offences are absent and institutional authorities, herein the Passport Authority and Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, have not perceived any criminality warranting prosecution, continuation of proceedings risks converting criminal process into a tool of harassment," it added.
The court found the charges under sections 465 and 466 of the IPC unsustainable, as no material was presented demonstrating that the petitioner had fabricated, altered, procured fabrication of or participated in the making of the alleged forged document.
The prosecution also failed to connect the petitioner with the act of fabrication through any forensic opinion, handwriting comparison, digital recovery or witness testimony, it said. Furthermore, the court clarified that the act of filling up the passport application using particulars from the allegedly forged certificate does not amount to making a false document.
The court also found the charge under section 420 of the IPC unsustainable, as it noted that there was no delivery of property, no wrongful gain had accrued and no wrongful loss occurred to any authority on account of the alleged forged document.
The court noted that the passport was not issued on the basis of the disputed document, but was only granted after the verified birth certificate was submitted. Since the issuance of the passport was not dependent on the disputed document, neither the municipal authority nor the passport-issuing authority had lodged any complaint alleging deception.
The court also found the charge under section 471 of the IPC unsustainable as it noted that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had conscious knowledge that the document was forged while using it genuinely.
It noted that her conduct was not indicative of guilty intent as she had earlier moved an application seeking preservation of CCTV footage from the time her husband allegedly handed over the disputed certificate to her.
The court also refused to draw an adverse inference against the accused for not producing her laptop and mobile phone for investigation, as it noted that the investigating agency had not used its powers to seek appropriate lawful coercive measures, such as search and seizure, to collect evidence.
"Non-production of electronic devices cannot substitute the prosecution's obligation to establish foundational facts constituting the offence," it said.
