IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.
Ajay Krishna Rastogi Son of Late Saryu Madhav Rastogi – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar and ors. - Opposite Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No.49032 of 2018
Decided On : 08-09-2022
Quashing - First Information Report - Indian Penal Code - 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 34 - Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code - The court discussed the essential ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the legal principles related to cheating, and the abuse of process of the court. The court also referred to relevant judgments to support its decision to quash the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the First Information Report (FIR) registered against them under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by the petitioner's own sister, alleging impersonation and fraudulent execution of a sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations failed to satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It also concluded that the initiation of the proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of the court and quashed the FIR and the proceedings emanating from it.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of impersonation and fraudulent execution of a sale deed, the abuse of process of the court, and the essential ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles related to cheating, the intention to cheat at the inception of a transaction, and the abuse of process of the court. It also referred to relevant judgments to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Mohania P.S. Case No. 348 of 2018 and the proceedings emanating therefrom, as it found no useful purpose in continuing with the present proceedings.
Based on the provided legal document, the main legal points are as follows:
The essential ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines the offence of cheating, must be satisfied to establish a case of cheating. Specifically, there must be deception, dishonest inducement, and mens rea at the time of the inducement (!) (!) .
Cheating involves deception played at the inception of a transaction, and subsequent failure to fulfill promises alone does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intent was present from the beginning (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that not every breach of contract amounts to cheating; there must be proof of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the outset of the transaction (!) (!) .
The court has the authority to quash criminal proceedings if they amount to an abuse of the court's process or if the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence. This includes cases where the allegations are inherently improbable, absurd, or motivated by ulterior motives (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In this particular case, the court found that the allegations did not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 420, and the proceedings were initiated based on personal vendetta and ulterior motives. The petitioner was only a witness to the sale deed, and the complaint was lodged on the same day as a civil suit regarding the same property, indicating abuse of process (!) (!) .
Consequently, the court held that continuing with the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and quashed the FIR and all related proceedings, recognizing that their continuation would amount to an abuse of the court's process (!) (!) .
The court also noted that the case fell under specific illustrations where proceedings could be quashed, such as when allegations are baseless, motivated by malice, or do not constitute a cognizable offence (!) .
These points collectively highlight the importance of establishing fraudulent intent at the inception of a transaction for a case under Section 420, and the court's power to prevent abuse of process by quashing proceedings that lack legal merit or are driven by ulterior motives.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of parties.
2. Present is an application for quashing the First Information Report of Mohania P.S. Case No. 348 of 2018 registered on 13.06.2018 under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was lodged by opposite party No. 2, against the petitioner and other persons.
3. The prosecution case in brief, that one Manju Bala Rastogi filed a Complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua on 02.06.2018 stating thereof that she married with one Dinesh Chandra Rastogi and residing at Merath. Accused/petitioner is own brother and a jealous person, who want to cause a loss of her property, by way of impersonation, where accused/petitioner actively participated to execute a sale deed No. 664 dated 03.02.2018 for Plot No. 31 area 1.40 decimal in favour of one Kashmira Devi/accused No. 1, with the help of deed writer, where petitioner himself stand as a witness.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that aforesaid complaint case which has been registered as Complaint Case No. 686 of 2018, was forwarded to Mohania police station for registration and institution of F.I.R., consequent upon Mohania P.S. Case No. 348 of 2018 was registered under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code against this petitioner. It is further submitted by learned counsel that complainant/informant is the own sister of accused/petitioner, where present F.I.R. has been lodged with an ulterior motive purely for private and personal grudge, as informant did not want to returned back the cash received from petitioner through various bank transactions on different occasions as sister. It is also submitted that false implications in present criminal case further get its strength as informant filed a Civil Suit bearing case no. 571 of 2018 dated 02.06.2018, on the same day, on which the present complaint was lodged, regarding same property, only to create a pressure through implication in criminal prosecution. Learned counsel further submitted that no case is made out under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as allegation failed to satisfy its essential ingredients. It is submitted that complaint was lodged after four months of alleged execution of sale deed.
5. In support of submission, learned counsel relied upon the report of Hon. Apex Court as reported in the matter of Uma Shankar Gopalika versus State of Bihar and Another, (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 336. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of para-6 of the said judgment for the sake of Convenience.
6. In Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another [(2005)1 SCC 122] [:2005(1) PLJR (SC) 95]:
7. It is submitted that in present allege
Uma Shankar Gopalika versus State of Bihar and Another
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others vs. State of Bihar and Another
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code for allegations of cheating, and the court's authority....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that criminal proceedings should not be used as a shortcut for civil disputes, and the need for fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of....
Mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intention is established from the outset, as per Section 420 IPC.
The court emphasized that speculative allegations without substantial evidence cannot sustain criminal proceedings, and individuals possess the right to manage their property affairs without undue in....
The court held that misrepresentation in a land sale transaction constituted cheating under Section 318(4) of BNS, and the FIR could not be quashed as it disclosed a cognizable offence.
Mere non-payment in business supply transaction does not constitute cheating under IPC Section 420 absent proof of dishonest inducement at inception; such civil disputes warrant FIR quashing to preve....
Failure to honour land sale agreement, with buyer aware of tenancy restrictions and advance returned, does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust absent dishonest intention at inception ....
The court emphasized that the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly and circumspectly exercised, and only in the rarest of rare cases.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.