Back
2012 Supreme(P&H) 749
2012(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRR No.1663 of 2009
Prem Kumar Rattan
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 02/07/2012}
For the Petitioner:Mr. M.S. Bedi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Sood, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. C.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Respondent No.2:Ms.Baljeet Mann, Advocate.
Cheating--In order to hold a person guilty of cheating, not only that, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the relevant time, but at the same time, it was incumbent for the complainant to indicate that he was deceived in any particular manner.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.415 & 420--Cheating--In order to hold a person guilty of cheating, not only that, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the relevant time, but at the same time, it was incumbent for the complainant to indicate that he was deceived in any particular manner.
In other words, cheating, requires deception of any person inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally inducing the person 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 that person, anybody's mind, reputation or property. (Para 12)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.415 & 420--Cheating--Complaint that respondent acquired government job by concealing fact that her sister has also get government on basis of death of their father, an Govt. employee--Held; No material in record that respondent has miss represented the department or gave any false information to secure his job--Complainant was not in any way aggrieved or connected with affairs of employment of respondent by Govt.--Essential ingredient of cheating missing--Complaint filed to harass and to wreak vengeance--Revisional court rightly accepted cancellation report--Petition dismissed. (Para 15)
Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The epitome of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that one Girdhari Lal was serving as a Patwari in the revenue department of Punjab. He died on duty on 6.9.1983. His daughter Suman Devi was stated to have got the job of Clerk-cum-Typist on 22.7.1985 on priority basis in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. Dr. Ramesh Kumar (respondent No.2), son of Girdhari Lal, was claimed to have also got the job of Dispenser and then Assistant Medical Officer by concealing material facts on the same grounds on priority basis in the office of Director Ayurvedic, Punjab .
2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that respondent No.2 got his indicated job on priority basis by concealing material facts and thus committed the fraud. Although petitioner-complainant Prem Kumar Rattan was not in any way aggrieved or connected with the affairs of employment of Dr. Ramesh Kumar (respondent No.2) by the Govt. of Punjab, but still, he moved a complaint against him (respondent No.2). In the wake of complaint of the complainant, initially a criminal case was registered against respondent No.2, vide FIR No.339 dated 13.8.2007, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 177 and 420 IPC by the police of Police Station Kotwali, Patiala in the manner described here-in-before.
3. Having thoroughly investigated, the police submitted the untraced report for cancellation of the criminal case. The petitioner-complainant filed a protest petition (Annexure P1) against the cancellation report. The Chief Judicial Magistrate did not accept the un-traced report, treated the protest petition as private complaint and summoned respondent No.2 as an accused to face the trial under Sections 177 and 420 IPC, by way of order dated 26.7.2008.
4. Aggrieved by the indicated order, the State of Punjab filed the revision petition, which was accepted. The order of CJM was set aside and the report submitted by the police was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, by means of impugned order dated 5.2.2009.
5. The petitioner-complainant did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and preferred the present petition, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that since respondent No.2 has misrepresented and cheated the concerned department, so, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On the basis of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner prayed for acceptance of revision petition in this relevant connection.
6. The respondents refuted the prayer of petitioner and filed their respective replies. The private respondent inter-alia pleaded certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. It was claimed that petitioner is brother-in-law (Nandoia) of Suman Devi, sister of respondent No.2. A large number of cases/litigations have been filed by the parties against each other, which are pending. The instant petition was filed only to harass the private respondent after an inordinate delay of 17 years from his appointment in the year 1993. According to respondent No.2 that since his family suffered severe financial constraints as a result thereof his mother moved an application before the competent authority on the ground that since her daughter Suman Devi, who had been given employment, is not giving any financial assistance to the family after her marriage, so, her son be given some government service on compassionate grounds. The application remained pending for four years and was ultimately processed, when the private respondent, who was a qualified doctor, was given the post of Dispenser in the office of Director Ayurvedic, Punjab in accordance with the instructions. He got that job on h
