The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of establishing fraudulent or dishonest inducement and intention at the beginning of the transaction to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

ORDER :

1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) is preferred by petitioner seeking quashment of order dated 02.11.2022 passed in S.T. No.280/2021 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bilaspur has framed a charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) against the petitioner.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of present case are that on 7.6.2017 complainant lodged written complaint in concerned police station mentioning that in the year 2011 she came into contact with petitioner’s husband namely Amit Kumar Kannauj and friendship developed between them. On the pretext of providing job to her in Railways, petitioner’s husband has obtained a total sum of Rs.6,48,150/-, which she has given to him either in cash or deposited in his account on different occasions. Thereafter, petitioner's husband took the complainant to Puri (Odhisha) on the pretext of her interview and there he established physical relation with her without her wish. It is further alleged that once when she went to the house of petitioner’s husband to give money, there also he established physical relation with her. Said Amit Kumar Kannauj neither got the job for complainant nor returned money to her. The complainant, when demanded her money back, said Amit Kumar Kannauj threatened her for life. It is further alleged that petitioner herein executed an agreement to repay the amount given to her husband in monthly instalments within 1½ year, but she also did not return the amount and thus by her acts she facilitated wrongful gains to her husband and thereby both have cheated complainant. Based on written complaint of complainant, Police registered offence under Section 376, 420, 34 of IPC against petitioner and her husband.

3. Upon completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against petitioner and her husband for the offences enumerated above. The case came to be committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur, who after taking into consideration the material available in the charge sheet, arrived at a conclusion that action on the part of petitioner falls within the ambit of ‘cheating’ which is punishable under Section 420 of IPC, and accordingly framed the charge under Section 420 IPC against her, the same was read over to her and she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Feeling aggrieved by order of framing charge, petitioner has filed this criminal revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that framing of charge is not a mechanical exercise but is a judicial application of mind and while framing charge, the Court is required to sift evidence and find out as to whether there is grave suspicion arising out of material on record based on which charge can be framed against an accused. In case at hand, even if the allegations contained in the complaint submitted by the complainant are to be read as a whole and accepted in its entirety as true, it cannot be said an offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. In the entire complaint/FIR, there is no allegation against petitioner that she had given assurance of arranging job for complainant and on that false pretext obtained money from her. Petitioner, being a wife, has simply undertaken to repay the amount allegedly obtained by her husband from complainant and her failure to keep that promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating, giving rise to criminal prosecution. At the worse, civil action for breaching the undertaking can be taken against the petitioner. He contended that basic ingredient of offence ‘cheating’, as provided under Section 415 of IPC is conspicuously missing and if petitioner is allowed to be prosecuted for offence under Section 420 of IPC in the facts of instant case, it will be a clear-cut abuse of process of law. Therefore, the charge framed against petitioner for the offence under Sectio