Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.
Keya Talukdar & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
C.R.R. 2234 of 2015, IA No. CRAN 2 of 2016 (Old No. CRAN 3994 of 2016)
Decided On : 10-05-2024
Cheating - Marriage Dispute - IPC Sections 415, 420, 406 - The court interpreted the definitions of cheating and inducement under IPC, concluding that the FIR did not disclose an offence under Sections 420 or 406, leading to the quashing of proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of cheating in a marriage arrangement, where the opposite party incurred expenses for the wedding that was ultimately cancelled. The complaint alleged that the petitioners induced the opposite party to incur these expenses without any intention to marry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR did not disclose any offence under Sections 420 or 406 of the IPC, as there was no evidence of inducement to deliver property or entrustment of property, which are essential elements of the alleged offences.
Issues: Whether the FIR disclosed an offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC, and whether the proceedings should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the essential elements of inducement and delivery of property required for Section 420 were not present in the FIR, and thus, the proceedings could not stand.
Result: The proceedings in connection with G.R. Case No. 3 of 2015 were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.) :
1. The petitioners have preferred the instant revisional application, inter alia praying for quashing of proceedings in connection with G.R. Case No. 3 of 2015 pending before the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short ACJM), 2nd Court, Kalyani, Nadia arising out of Chakdaha Police Station Case No. 838/ 2014 dated 30.12.2014 under Sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).
Gist of the Case:-
2. The facts of the case, in laconic, is that on 30.12.2014 the opposite party no. 2 lodged a written complaint against the petitioners to the effect that his youngest daughter and one Durbadal Talukder (since deceased) was about to get married and the date for the marriage ceremony was fixed on 29.01.2015 on mutual consent of both the families and in presence of the alleged persons. The opposite party no. 2 arranged bridal gifts including paying advance for furniture, arranging for jewelleries, TV, Fridge, Clothing etc. and also made arrangements for pandals, lights, Municipal water etc. for the occasion. Moreover, he even printed the marriage cards and distributed the same to his friends and relatives but later on, all of a sudden the opposite party no. 2 got an information from the middle man that the alleged persons/ petitioners would not continue with the proceedings of marriage and thereby cancelled the same which resulted in the opposite party no. 2 incurring losses of Rs. 1,45,000/-. In spite of that, the opposite party no. 2 along with some relatives went to the house of groom to get a real idea about the truth but the petitioners showcased rude gestures and informed him that the said marriage would not take place under any circumstances. Although, opposite party no. 2 made several requests, prayers but petitioners did not pay any heed. After realizing that the petitioners cheated the opposite party no. 2 through their pre-meditated activities which resulted in him loosing his life earned money and also their family respect, the opposite party no. 2 made this written complaint.
3. On receipt of the said written complaint Chakdaha Police Station Case No. 838/2014 dated 30.12.2014 under Sections 420/406/34 of the IPC was registered against the petitioners. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet dated 23.03.2015 under Sections 420/406/34 of the IPC was submitted against the petitioners.
4. The said charge sheet was filed before Ld. ACJM, Kalyani, Nadia and the Ld. Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance of the same vide order dated 29.03.2015 against the petitioners. The instant case was then transferred to the Court of Ld. ACJM, 2nd Court, Kalyani for disposal.
Argument Advanced:-
5. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the FIR in connection with this case did not disclose any offence under Section 420/406 of the IPC.
6. Mr. Chatterjee has specifically contended that neither any inducement was caused to deliver any property to the petitioners leading to wrongful loss to the opposite party no. 2 or wrongful gain to the petitioners to attract the provision of Section 420 of the IPC.
7. Mr. Chatterjee has further submitted that the contents of FIR never disclosed anything about entrustment of any property with the petitioners.
8. Before concluding his argument Mr. Chatterjee has submitted that bride-groom/ petitioner no. 4 herein died on 25.09.2015 and his name was expunged from the cause title of revision application vide order dated 11.03.2024.
9. In support of his contention, Mr. Chatterjee has relied on a case of Kalyan Kumar Das Vs. State of West Bengal and another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1190.
10. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Sauradeep Dutta appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 heavily relied on the provision of Section 415 of the IPC and tried to make this Court understand that the definition of cheating concluded with the following sentence-
The court established that mere silence or failure to disclose a relationship does not constitute cheating under IPC without evidence of fraudulent intent.
The allegations in the FIR do not constitute an offence under IPC Sections 406 and 420, as they lack essential elements of criminal intent, reflecting a civil dispute instead.
The intention to cheat must be established at the time of inducement; mere failure to fulfill a promise does not constitute cheating.
A mere promise to marry, followed by a breach, does not constitute an offence of cheating under Section 420 of IPC unless there is evidence of deception, fraudulent inducement, and intention to cause....
The necessity of proving a promise or deceit made to the victim by the accused for the purpose of attributing Sec. 415 and 420 of the IPC.
The court affirmed that for a conviction under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate elements of fraudulence and dishonest inducement, supported by credible witness testimony.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
