SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Pat) 1095

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Naveen Kumar Pandey, APP

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 to quash proceedings that amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

Headnote:

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.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the main legal points are as follows:

  1. 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 (!) (!) .

  2. 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 (!) (!) .

  3. 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 (!) (!) .

  4. 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 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

  5. 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 (!) (!) .

  6. 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 (!) (!) .

  7. 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.

    “…..........It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code”.

6. In Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another [(2005)1 SCC 122] [:2005(1) PLJR (SC) 95]:

    “…...........It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of powers, court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto”.

7. It is submitted that in present allege

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          Judicial Analysis

          AI

          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top