Whether a prior agreement and conscious participation are necessary to attract the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code?

Yes. In order to attract the offence under Section 120B there must be a prior agreement and conscious participation. Here the prosecution did not allege that the developers prepared the fabricated plan approval, had not found the person who fabricated it, and the approval was afterwards granted on the construction being confirmed as otherwise permissible, so there was no material to attract the charge.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.120B — s.405 — s.406 — s.420 — Criminal conspiracy — Entrustment — Cheating — Discharge — Quashing of proceedings — Civil liability not converted into criminal liability — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.120B — Criminal conspiracy — Prior agreement and conscious participation — Held: To attract the offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code there must be a prior agreement and conscious participation; where the material discloses neither, there is no material to attract the charge. (¶16) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.405 — s.420 — Entrustment and cheating essential ingredients — Held further: Entrustment with property or with dominion over property is an essential ingredient of criminal breach of trust, and cheating is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 420. (¶21, 22) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.420 — Civil dispute given cloak of criminal offence — Held further: Civil liability cannot be converted into criminal liability, and where a matter essentially of civil nature has been given a cloak of criminal offence, the proceedings are an abuse of the process of Court. (¶23, 24) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Discharge and quashing — No material against owners and developers — Held further: Where the prosecution itself alleges that the signatures of the accused were fabricated by others and that they received only the actual market value, no charge is made out and the proceedings are quashed as against them alone. Petitions allowed. (¶19, 25, 26)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Manav Goyal v. The State — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India