Back
1977 Supreme(Kar) 6
Karnataka High Court
ACHAR MNA. - Appellant
Versus
Dr.D.L.RAJAGOPAL - Respondent
Decided On : 01-17-77
Cr.R.P. : 250 of 1976
A.SHAMANNA, C.B.MOTAIAH, T.J.CHOUTA
The essential elements of cheating include inducing the deceived person to do or omit to do anything and resulting harm or damage. The offense of cheating does not depend on the validity of the marriage but on the fraudulent and dishonest inducement.
Headnote:
cheating - marriage - Ss. 419, 420, 114 of the IPC - S. 415, S. 416, S. 417, S. 419, S. 420, S. 114 of the IPC - The court discussed the offenses of cheating by personation and cheating under the IPC, highlighting the elements of the offenses and their interpretation in the context of the case. The court emphasized the requirement of inducing the deceived person to do or omit to do anything and the resulting harm or damage as essential elements of the offense of cheating. The court also addressed the issue of delivery of property and the fraudulent inducement in the context of the marriage, concluding that the offenses were prima facie made out.
Fact of the Case:
The accused induced the petitioner and his daughter into a marriage under false pretenses, leading to the discovery of the accused's existing marriage. The magistrate discharged the accused, finding the charges groundless.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges of cheating and cheating by personation were prima facie made out, and the discharge of the accused was incorrect.
Issues: The issues revolved around the elements of cheating and cheating by personation under the IPC, the requirement of delivery of property, and the fraudulent inducement in the context of the marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the essential elements of cheating include inducing the deceived person to do or omit to do anything and resulting harm or damage. The court also emphasized that the offense of cheating does not depend on the validity of the marriage but on the fraudulent and dishonest inducement.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal revision petitions, set aside the discharge order, and sent the case back for the framing of proper charges and further proceedings in accordance with the law.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief was, that during Novr 1973 the accused approached, the petitioner MNA. Achar and made him to believe that the first accused Dr. D. L. Rajagopal was a bachelor and available for marriage with the Daughter of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner end his daughter CW 5 consented to the marriage which took place at srirangam on 30-11-1973. The other four accused A-2 to A-5 actually partioipated in the marriage. They had also negotiated for the same and according to the petitioner abetted in the offences committed by Dr. D. L. Rajagopal the first accused. Subseauentlv, the petitioner-complainant and his daughter learnt that A-1 was alreadv married to one Kusumavati CW. 6 and the said marriage was pcrformed at Tirupati. It was stated that A-1 committed the offence of cheating by personation and was liable to be punished under S. 419 of the IPC. At the same time he fraudulently and dishonestly induced the petitioner-complainant and his daughter to perform the marriage of A-1 with the daughter CW. 5 and therebv caused damage of tje body mind and ronutation of the father and of the body, mind and renutation of the girl CW R. Therebv A-1 is stated to habe committed the offence of cheating as defined in S. 415 and Since he dishonestly induced the petitioner-complaiant to deliver a property. he is also liable for punishment for the offence under S. 420 of the IPC. With these allegations made in the police complaint, some investigation was made and finally the police submitted a challan against A-1 and the other four accused persons under ss. 419 and 420 read with S. 114 of the IPC.
( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate however considered that the charges made out were groundless and hence he chose to discharge these accused under s. 230 Crlpc. Poth the State as well as the petitioner-complainant have felt aggrieved of that decision and have preferred the two present criminal petitions.
( 4 ) SINCE a common question of law and fact arises in these two petitions, these can be disposed of by a single judgment.
( 5 ) A perusal of the judgment of the learned Magistrate indicates that he was of thp opinion that the offence of cheating by personation under S. 416 of the IPC was not made out, because the identity of Dr. D. L Paiagcpal, being a Doctor tearing that name was uniform all throughcut. He never substituted himself to be somehedy else nor did he pretend to be some other person. Therefore the learned Magistrate concluded that the offence cf cheating by personate was not made out. In respect of the offence of cheating under S. 420 IPC, the learned Magistrate seems to be of the poinion that unless some property was delivered at the instance of the accused ard the marriase of the daughter could not amount tf the delivery of any property to the accused at the instance of the father, that offence too was not made out. So saying the learned Magistrate held that the charges were groundless.
( 6 ) THE allegations made in the complaint as well as the statements of the witnesses produced during investigation made out rather a simple case. The petitioner-complairant alleged that A-1 as well as hi? other associates accused A-2 to A-5 approached both the father and daughter with the proposal of marriage. A representation was made that A-1 was a bachelor and since he was approved as such for the marriage, the petitioner-complainant and his dpughter agreed tc the proposal made. Thereafter, the marriage was performed: It was only subsequently that it was learnt that A-1 was already married to CW. 6 and had even a child from her. During investigation CW. 6 the alleged previous wife gave her statement. CW. 8 and CW. 10 are the persons from Tirupati who either performed the marriage or participated in it a
