2023 Supreme(HP) 561
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Geeta Kashyap & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) Nos. 2226 of 2022 & 1118 of 2023
Decided On : 01-12-2023
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Mr. Pawan Gautam.
For the Respondent:Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General with SI Dhanvir, Police Station Solan, District Solan, HP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that fraudulent or dishonest intention is essential to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of IPC, and bail proceedings cannot be turned into recovery proceedings.
Headnote:
Cheating - Bail Petitions - Section 420 of IPC - [Section 420 of IPC] - The court discussed the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC and emphasized the need for fraudulent or dishonest intention to constitute the offence of cheating. It also highlighted that the bail proceedings cannot be turned into recovery proceedings and that criminal proceedings are not for the realization of disputed dues. The court allowed the bail applications as it found that no case of inducement or delivery of property based on inducement had been made out and that the emphasis of the informant and the State was on recovering money during the bail proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The informant alleged that the accused, including the petitioners, falsely claimed to be wholesale dealers of gold and induced him to invest money in gold. When the money was not returned, the informant filed a complaint, leading to the registration of an FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no case of inducement or delivery of property based on inducement had been made out, and the bail proceedings could not be turned into recovery proceedings.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged cheating and dishonest inducement to deliver property, the recovery of money, and the misuse of bail terms by the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for fraudulent or dishonest intention to constitute the offence of cheating and highlighted that bail proceedings cannot be turned into recovery proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail applications and made the orders dated 4.10.2022 and 10.5.2023 absolute till the disposal of the case, as it found no case of inducement or delivery of property based on inducement and that the emphasis of the informant and the State was on recovering money during the bail proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
These bail petitions have arisen out of the same FIR and therefore, they are taken up together for convenience.
2. The informant Anil Sharma filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan asserting that accused no. 2 to 7 (including the present petitioners) claimed themselves to be the wholesale dealers of gold. Petitioner Geeta Devi alias Geeta Kashyap claimed herself to be an agent of accused No. 2 to 7, who was working with accused No. 4-M/s R.C. Jewellers. The informant was introduced to accused no. 1 Geeta Kashyap by one Harish. The informant developed good relations with Geeta Kashyap and he started treating her as his sister. Geeta used to borrow money from the informant on one pretext or another and return the same on the assured date. She told the informant that she had started investing money in gold and asked the informant to join her. The informant refused as he never wanted to enter into this business being speculative. The residential house and building of Geeta collapsed in a hill slide in June 2019. Geeta approached the informant and demanded money from him. The informant paid the rent of the flat hired by Geeta. He also advanced Rs.50.00 lacs by bank transfer and also provided some amount in cash by borrowing it from his relatives. The money was provided on the condition that it would be returned after a few months without any interest. The financial condition of Geeta improved and the informant demanded money from her; however, the money was not paid despite repeated requests. The informant and Geeta had a heated argument and she revealed that she had invested the entire money in gold by investing it with M/s R.C. Jewellers, owned by Ria Chauhan, one of the petitioners, and Meenakshi Mittal. The informant threatened to take legal action against Geeta, who asked him to visit Jirakpur and meet the partners of R.C. Jewellers. The informant went to Jirakpur on 30.10.2019 where he was introduced to Ria Chauhan and Meenakshi Mittal. Ria acknowledged that Geeta had invested Rs.50.00 lacs in the business. Ria Chauhan and the other accused assured the informant that his money would be returned at the earliest. She even issued two cheques to clear her liability. However, the cheques were dishonoured. The accused lured the informant to open a gold shop at Jirakpur. It was decided that Geeta would sit in the shop with the informant. The accused assured to supply the gold worth Rs.50.00 lacs to the informant in his shop which was opened at Jirakpur. The informant invested Rs.10.00 lacs while opening the shop, however, the gold was not sent as per the commitment. The shop was handed over to Geeta, who is running the same in the name of Ganpati Jewellers. She has not returned the money. The accused also owns money to various persons and they are entering into agreements with them. The complaint was sent to the Police. The police registered the FIR and found that Anil Sharma-informant had transferred money to Geeta for investing in the gold. This money was transferred to the account of R.C. Jewellers. The police searched for Ria Chauhan, Pawan Chauhan, Pooja Chauhan and Rohan Chauhan but could not find them.
3. The petitioners filed the bail petitions asserting that they were innocent and they were falsely implicated. They belong to respectable sections of the society. They would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, the petition.
4. The police filed a status report outlining the facts mentioned above.
5. The informant Anil Sharma intervened and he filed an affidavit asserting that as per the police report, Rs.27,55,000/- had been transferred; however, the informant had advanced Rs.50.00 lacs. The police are not conducting the investigation properly. The accused are sharing the rent equally with the informant and they transferred an amount of Rs.1,26,000/- in the bank account of the informant. The informant paid a total amount of Rs