Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahavir S. Chauhan
CRM-M-18338 of 2011
Ram Lubaya & Ors.
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 05/05/2014}
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420--Cheating--The first element necessary for constituting the offence of cheating is deception of the complainant by the accused--Unless there is deception, the offence of cheating never gets attracted--After deception has been practiced, the persons deceived should get induced to do or omit to do something. (Para 11)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420--Cheating--Essential Ingredients--Held; For constituting offence of cheating, (1) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the person alleged to have deceived the complainant; (2) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any persons, or to consent that any person shall retain any property or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (3) in cases covered by 2(b) the Act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, reputation or property. (Para 11)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.420, 506 & 120-B--Cheating--Threat--Criminal Conspiracy--Quashing--Daughter of complainant was engaged with son of petitioners--Petitioners demanded certain gifts from complainant--Complainant approached petitioners but the petitioners and other members of their family did not accede to their request and stated that the marriage would not be performed if their demand was not met--Ultimately, the petitioners are stated to have refused to go ahead with the marriage and even threatened the complainant party on phone--No offence u/s 420, 506 and 120-B IPC is made out--FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482.
From the circumstances constituting the FIR, it is not deducible that there was an agreement amongst the petitioners to do an illegal act or legal act by illegal means and that any such agreement was followed by an overt act done by one or all of them in furtherance of the agreement attracting Section 120-B, IPC, or the petitioners threatened with injury to the person, reputation or property of the complainant or to the person or reputation of any one in whom the complainant might be interested, with intent to cause alarm to the complainant attracting Section 506, IPC, or there has been fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the petitioners or that the complainant was induced to deliver any property to any persons, or to consent that any person would retain any property or was intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and the act or omission caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the complainant in body, reputation or property attracting Section 420, IPC--Rather, from the circumstances of the case it is manifested that the complainant has not been able to digest failure of proposed nuptial tie-up of his daughter with petitioner Raj Kumar and has launched the criminal proceedings only to persecute the petitioner and thereby satiate his annoyance against them. (Para 13)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to seek the quashing of FIR No.15 dated 04.02.2011, which was recorded at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran, under Sections 420, 506, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (!) .
The grounds for quashing include the absence of sufficient legal evidence and the lack of elements necessary to constitute the alleged offences, suggesting that no cognizable offence is made out from the FIR (!) (!) .
The FIR was based on a complaint alleging demands for dowry and threats related to the marriage of the complainant’s daughter, but the circumstances do not support the existence of an agreement to commit illegal acts, nor do they establish the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 506, or 120-B IPC (!) (!) (!) .
The complaint and FIR do not demonstrate fraudulent or dishonest inducement, nor do they show that the accused persons induced the complainant to deliver property or to do or omit to do anything resulting in damage or harm (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the allegations are either exaggerated or motivated by personal grudges, and not supported by concrete evidence to establish the commission of the offences (!) (!) .
The court has inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice, which can be exercised to quash proceedings that are based on frivolous or unsubstantiated allegations (!) (!) .
The court notes that the documents supporting the prosecution's case, such as inquiry reports and legal opinions, have not been made part of the record, which raises a presumption that their inclusion might weaken the case against the petitioners (!) .
Given the absence of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and the potential for abuse of process, the court finds it appropriate to quash the FIR and all proceedings emanating from it, and to discharge the petitioners from the ongoing criminal proceedings (!) .
Would you like me to assist further with drafting legal arguments or summarizing specific aspects?
Mr. Mahavir S. Chauhan, J. (Oral):- Inherent powers of this Court are being brought into play, by way of this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, (for short, Cr.P.C.), by the petitioners to seek quashing of First Information Report (for short, FIR) No.15 dated 04.02.2011 (Annexure P-1) recorded at Police Station, Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran, under Sections 420, 506, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and all the proceedings emanating therefrom on the plea that from the circumstances constituting the FIR, no offence punishable under either of the above-stated Sections is made out.
2. While respondent No.2 has chosen not to file a response, a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State, wherein it has been stated that after receipt of the complaint, an inquiry was conducted and on the basis of inquiry report and legal opinion dated 27.01.2011 of the Deputy District Attorney (Legal), the present FIR was recorded.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Criminal Conspiracy, which is punishable under Section 12-B, IPC, has been defined by Section 120-A, IPC, as under:
“120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.—When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,—
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation— It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.”
5. An agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or legal act by illegal means is criminal conspiracy. If the agreement is not an agreement to commit an offence, it does not amount to conspiracy unless it is followed by an overt act done by one or more persons in furtherance of the agreement. The offence is complete as soon as there is meeting of minds and unity of purpose between the conspirators to do that illegal act or legal act by illegal means. Conspiracy itself is a substantive offence and is distinct from the offence to commit which the conspiracy is entered into. The common law definition of ‘criminal conspiracy’ was stated first by Lord Denman in Jones’ case (1832 B & AD 345) that an indictment for conspiracy must “charge a conspiracy to do an unlawful act by unlawful means” and was elaborated by Willies, J, while referring the question to the House of Lords in Mulcahy v. Reg (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 306 and the House of Lords in unanimous decision reiterated in Quinn v. Leathem 1901 AC 495 as under:
“A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and the act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable of for a criminal object or for the use of criminal means. (emphasis supplied)”
6. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India enumerated the elements of criminal conspiracy in K. Hasim V. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2005 SC 128, thus:
“The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish the objects, (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to co-operate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, and (d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the o
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
