Back
1986 Supreme(Del) 18
High Court Of Delhi
SADHU RAM - Appellant
Versus
KISHAN KUMAR - Respondent
CRI.MISC.(M.) 172 of 1985
Decided On : 01/13/1986
H.K.Sharma, R.P.Suhag
Concealment of material information about a person's mental disorder before marriage can constitute cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 482 - SUMMONING OF ACCUSED - OFFENCE OF CHEATING - CONCEALMENT OF MENTAL DISORDER OF GROOM - WHETHER GROUNDS FOR SUMMONING OF GROOM'S PARENTS AND SIBLINGS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 420 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CHEATING - INTENTION TO DECEIVE AND WRONGFUL GAIN OR LOSS - APPLICATION TO FACTS OF CASE.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the petitioners, the parents and siblings of the groom, had cheated him by concealing the groom's mental disorder before the marriage. The complainant claimed that he would not have agreed to the marriage or spent money on it if he had known about the groom's condition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was prima facie evidence to support the charges against the groom's parents and brothers, but not against the groom's sisters. The court held that the petitioners had withheld material information about the groom's mental disorder, which constituted cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: Whether the petitioners had cheated the complainant by concealing the groom's mental disorder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and held that the essential elements of cheating are the intention to deceive and the wrongful gain or loss. The court found that the petitioners had the intention to deceive the complainant by concealing the groom's mental disorder, and that the complainant had suffered a wrongful loss as a result of the marriage.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the order of the magistrate summoning the groom's parents and brothers, but set aside the summoning of the groom's sisters.
( 2 ) ON Mar. 16, 1983, Sunita daughter of the complainant was married to Khem Chand, petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents, petitioners 3 and 5 are the brothers, petitioners 4 and 6 respective wives of the said brothers and petitioners 7 to 9 are the sisters of said Khem Chand. The marriage was unsuccessful one.
( 3 ) THE allegations of the complainant are that he was cheated inasmuch as although Khem Chand was suffering from mental disorder, yet that fact was deliberately concealed from him before the marriage took place. The contention of the complainant is that not only that there was concealment, on the other hand there were all praises and admirations of good health, competence and business acumen of Khem Chand and it was represented that he was earning between Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 5000/- per month on account of good running of his business. The grievance of the complainant, therefore, is that had the fact about the mental disorder of Khem Chand been known, he would not have agreed to marry his daughter, an only female child and would not have spent money, which was more than rupees one lakh, on marriage.
3a. Although in the complaint the complainant wanted summoning of the present petitioners also in respect of commission of offences punishable under Ss. 323, 504, 506 IPC etc. , the learned Magistrate confined the summoning only in respect of the commission of the offence punishable under S. 420 IPC.
3b. With the assistance of the counsel for the parties I have gone through the complaint and the preliminary evidence recorded before the Magistrate and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the first five paras. of the complaint it is mentioned that petitioner No. 1 approached the complainant with a proposal for marrying the daughter of the latter with the son of the former and that the former praised about the qualities of his son a lot and that thereafter petitioners 3 and 5 had also been joining in that chorus of admiration of Khem Chand. In para. 6, the complainant had been using the word accused while alleging that they were full of praises for Khem Chand and were telling that he was a very good match for Sunita. However, this involvement of the ladies out of the petitioners was not supported by evidence. In para 6 it was stated that all the accused praised about the qualities of Khem Chand when the complainant and his son Bala Prasad visited the house of Sadhu Ram, petitioner. But in the statement of Kishan Kumar as a witness during preliminary evidence, that fact was not supported and rather it was stated that on 11th Feb. 1983 the petitioners (names of the petitioners were also mentioned) praised Khem Chand when they came to the house of the complainant. This incident of 11th Feb. 1983 was not specifically mentioned in the complaint. Under these circumstances, as far as the ladies out of the petitioners are concerned, it cannot be said that there were good grounds for proceeding against them in respect of the commission of any offence.
( 4 ) HOWEVER, the case against petitioners Nos. 1, 3 and 5 is prima facie made out from the evidence. It may be recalled that the marriage between Khem Chand and Sunita took place on 16th Mar. 1983. Yet before that, as the evidence of Dr. G. C. Mujral (PW 4) is, according to the record of G. B. Pant Hospital, Khem Chand had an attack some time in 1982 of manic depressive psychosis , which is a mental disease. Dr. Munjal also stated that Khem Chand was brought to the Hospital on 22nd July 1983 and was discharged on 10th Aug. 1983 and that he remained admitted in the hospital on account of attack of the aforesaid diseas
