1986 Supreme(Ker) 309
Judges : THOMAS
KERALA FILM ARTISTS & CRITICS SOCIETY - Appellant
Versus
UNNI MENON - Respondent
Case No : Crl.M.C. No 366 of 1986
Decided On : 09/26/1986
Advocates Appeared :
V.N. Achutha Kurup; M.S. Radhakrishnan Nair; For Petitioner S. Soman; Public Prosecutor; For Respondents
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove dishonest intention at the time of making a promise to establish the offence of cheating under S.415 IPC.
Headnote:
cheating - Play Back Singer - Indian Penal Code, Section 420 - S.415, S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The court discussed the definition of cheating under S.415 IPC and emphasized the need for deception, fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and intention to defraud or cause wrongful gain or loss. The court referred to previous cases to highlight the importance of proving dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. The absence of such elements led the court to quash the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a play back singer, was accused of cheating by a society after failing to perform at an Award Night despite earlier promises. The society alleged fraudulent and dishonest intention to cause damage and harm.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint did not disclose the offence of cheating as defined in S.415 IPC, emphasizing the absence of deception, fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and intention to defraud or cause wrongful gain or loss.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complaint disclosed the offence of cheating under S.415 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proving dishonest intention at the time of making the promise and highlighted the absence of essential elements required to establish the offence of cheating.
Final Decision: The court quashed all proceedings in the case, ruling that no cognizance of any offence could be taken based on the complaint.
1. The petitioner is a play back singer A society called "Kerala Film Artists & Critics Society", selected him as the best Malayalam play back singer for the year 1985 The President of the said Society filed a complaint against the petitioner and another person alleging that they committed an offence of cheating against the Society The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum before whom the complaint was filed, took cognizance of the offence under S.420 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process to the petitioner Thereupon, the petitioner has come up with this petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The facts disclosed in the complaint read thus: The Society used to celebrate "Award Nights" with variety entertainments etc and awards are given away during those celebrations for the best Malayalam film of the year and also the best artists in cinematography The petitioner was selected as the best Malayalam play back singer for the year 1985 An Award Night was arranged to be held in the University Senate Hall, Trivandrum on 16-2-1986 in which the presentation of awards to the winners would be made The petitioner was informed of this over the phone and in reply thereto the petitioner told the complainant that he would then perform a music concert (Ganamela) free of cost during the Award Night He requested the complainant to make arrangements to get the assistance of an orchestra to play the back ground music The complainant in turn made arrangements with "Ajantha orchestra" of Trivandrum to play the background when songs are sung by the petitioner A sum of Rs 1.000/ was paid to the petitioner towards his conveyance and other incidental expenses as demanded by him The petitioner sent a list to the complainant regarding the songs intended to be presented to the audience during the Award Night The petitioner reached Trivandrum on the date of the Award Night but he informed the complainant that he was not ready to present the music concert He resiled from his earlier promise and did not present the programme According to the complainant the petitioners did so with the fraudulent and dishonest intention to cause damage to the Society and also to cause harm to the reputation of the Society Complainant further says that the Society consequently sustained huge loss of money as also loss of reputation On these allegations, the respondent filed the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complaint does not disclose any offence, much less the offence of cheating as defined in S.415 of the IPC and hence the Chief Judicial Magistrate was in error in taking cognizance of the offence of cheating It cannot be doubted that, if the complaint does not disclose an offence, (either an offence of cheating or any other offence) cognizance ought not have been taken on that complaint Nor can it be doubted that if cognizance was taken inspite of it and if this Court is informed of it, this Court has the jurisdiction to interfere in exercise of the powers under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Vide Delhi Municipality v Ram Kishan (AIR 1983 SC 67).
4. The offence of cheating is defined in S.415 IPC It reads thus: "415 Cheating: Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property, to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any properly or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
5. Even without going into the latter limb of the said definition, it is clear that the primary ingredient of the offence is deception played by the accused by fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the person so deceived to do or omit to do something or to deliver any property to any person etc "Fraudulently" is d