IMPORTANT POINT
To attract Section 415 of IPC it is not always necessary that the offence of cheating must relate to properties; intention, inducement to do or omit to do an act causing damage, harm or reputation would amount to cheating.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 415-Cheating-Misrepresentation of caste for purpose of marriage-High Court holding that cheating must relate to property-Broad proposition of High Court not correct-First part of definition relates to property-Second part need not necessarily relate to property-Intentional inducement to do or omit to do an act leading to sufference of damage, harm in body, mind, reputation or property sufficient to attract second part.
       While the first part of the definition relates to property, the second part need not necessarily relate to property. This part speaks of intentional deception which must be intended not only to induce the person deceived to do or omit to do something but also to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. The intentional deception presupposes the existence of a dominant motive of the person making the inducement. Such inducement should have led the person deceived or induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not have done or omitted to do if he were not deceived. The further requirement is that such act or omission should have caused damage or harm to body, mind, reputation or property. (Paras 5 & 6)
       Section 415 has two parts. While in the first part, the person must "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" induce the complainant to deliver any property; in the second part, the person should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. That is to say, in the first part, inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent. In the second part, the inducement should be intentional. A guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. In order, therefore, to secure conviction of a person for the offence of cheating, "mens rea" on the part of that person, must be established. Thus, so far as second part of Section 415 is concerned, "property", at no stage, is involved. Here it is the doing of an act or omission to do an act by the complainant, as a result of intentional inducement by the accused, which is material. Such inducement should result in the doing of an act or omission to do an act as a result of which the person concerned should have suffered or was likely to suffer damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property. (Paras 5, 6, 7 & 8).
       Where the complaint was that respondent accused persons intentionally represented that they belonged to forward case community, while in fact they belonged to scheduled Tribe, and thus caused the complainant to marry a woman of their family, but the High Court quashed the complaint. While the first part of the definition relates to property, the second part need not necessarily relate to property, it was held that the High Court was not correct in its interpretation of the provisions contained under Section 415 IPC. (Para 5)
       The Supreme Court however upheld quashing of the FIR observing that the petitioner himself is a Scientist at the Centre for DNA Finger Printing & Diagnostics, Hyderabad which is a prestigious Institution of the country. In this capacity, he can be reasonably presumed to be aware of the bio-diversity at the Cellular and Molecular level amongst human beings without the "caste" having any role in the field of Human Biotechnology. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-This Special Leave Petition was dismissed by us on 4.10.1999. We, hereinbelow, give our reasons for dismissing the Special Leave Petition.

2. The petitioner is a Post-Doctoral fellow at Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad. He invited marriage proposals for himself through advertisement in Deccan Chronicle dated 27th of January, 1994, in pursuance of which respondent No.1 approached the petitioner and furnished the particulars of respondent No.4 who is his sister. It was represented by respondent No.1 that respondent No.4 was born on 29th of June, 1966 and they belonged to Thurupukapu Community. The petitioner himself gave out that he belonged to Gujala Balija Community which was a forward community and, therefore, he wanted a wife from a forward community. The parents of respondents No. 4, who are respondents 2 to 3 in this petition, met the parents of the petitioner and they talked and the marriage proposal was finalised. Betrothel ceremony took place on 27th of June, 1994 and later the marriage took place on 19.8.94. On 4th of March, 1997, the petitioner, allegedly, came to know that respondents 1 to 4 belonged to Kondakapu Community, which was a Scheduled Tribe, and it was then that the realised that the misrepresenting themselves as members of Thurupukapu Community, they had lured the petitioner into wedlock, for which the petitioner would not have agreed at all, had he known that the respondents did not belong to Thurupukapu Community but belonged to Kondakapu Community. It was in these circumstances that he filed a complaint in the Court on 10.7.1996 under Section 415, 419, 420 read with Section 34 IPC which was referred to Station House Officer, Police Station Alwal, Rangareddy District, Andhra Pradesh for investigation and report. Since the investigation was considerably delayed, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 11477 of 1997 in the High Court for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Station House Officer to expedite the investigation. While the Writ Petition was pending, an affidavit was filed by the Station House Officer that after completing the investigation, he had submitted the chargesheet in the Court on 28.5.1997 against the respondents. The respondents, however, approached the High Court through a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of the FIR which was allowed by the impugned judgment and it is in these circumstances that this petition has been filed in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint (FIR) as a chargesheet had already been submitted after the investigation and a prima facie case was made out against the respondents. He has further contended that the High Court was wrong in its interpretation of Section 415 IPC.

3. Before considering the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits, we may state another important fact that the petitioner himself is facing a case under Section 498-A IPC instituted by the respondents against him. It is stated in the petition that this prosecution was launched by the respondents against the petitioner as a counter-blast to the notice dated 13.6.1995 which was issued by him to respondent No.1 as to why he had misrepresented about his caste and why had he represented to the petitioner that he belonged to Thurupukapu Community instead of Kondakapu Community.

4. The CHEATING is defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code which provides as under :-

"415. Cheating.-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "chea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 505

IMPORTANT POINT To attract Section 415 of IPC it is not always necessary that the offence of cheating must relate to properties; intention, inducement to do or omit to do an act causing damage, harm or reputation would amount to cheating.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
To attract Section 415 of IPC it is not always necessary that the offence of cheating must relate to properties; intention, inducement to do or omit to do an act causing damage, harm or reputation would amount to cheating.