Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Surinder Kaur - Petitioner
Versus
Lachmi Devi and others - Respondents
CRR No.587 of 2017
Decided On : 20-09-2017
IPC - Cheating - Sections 406, 420 - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, focusing on the elements of cheating and dishonest inducement. The court analyzed the evidence presented and concluded that the accused did not fulfill the essential elements of the offenses, leading to their acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that she was induced to pay a sum of money to the accused for arranging a job abroad, but upon reaching the destination, she was forced into sex trade. The accused were acquitted by the trial court, and the appeal was dismissed by the appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of cheating and dishonest inducement under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The complainant's allegations were not substantiated by the evidence presented.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the alleged cheating and dishonest inducement by the accused, as well as the complainant's return to India and the delay in lodging the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to establish the essential elements of cheating and dishonest inducement. The complainant's allegations were found to be unsupported by the testimony and the delay in lodging the FIR raised doubts about the veracity of the claims.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the accused by the trial court and the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate court.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the trial Court acquitting the respondents/accused in FIR No.64 dated 15.07.2012 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') at Police Bilga, District Jalandhar as well as the order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the Appellate Court, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner/complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.07.2012, Surinder Kaur (complainant) wife of Balwinder Ram filed a complaint against Lachhmi Devi and Naresh Rani alleging that she (Surinder Kaur) was induced by Lachhmi Devi that she would send her to Cyprus as she and her friend Naresh Rani had sent many persons abroad and got them settled there providing good jobs. Lachhmi Devi told the complainant that her daughter Kaushalaya Devi and Anil Kumar son of Naresh Rani are also settled in Cyprus. The accused–Lachhmi Devi further told her that Kaushalya Devi and Anil Kumar would prepare the necessary documents and she will also send her at Cyprus. Lachhmi Devi demanded Rs.4,50,000/- for the said purpose. On 14.03.2012, the complainant along with her husband and Vir Chand went at the house of Lachhmi Devi and gave Rs.2,50,000/- to her. Lachhmi Devi took copy of passport from the complainant and told her that remaining amount shall be paid when the papers from abroad would be received. Thereafter, Lachhmi Devi sent a message to the complainant that she has received the papers from Cyprus and the complainant should come with the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant along with her husband and Balvir Ram went to the house of Lachhmi Devi on 04.04.2012 and handed-over the balance amount and received the ticket and other relevant documents from Naresh Rani, on the asking of Lachhmi Devi. When the complainant reached Cyprus, Kaushalya Devi and Anil Kumar came in the evening and told the complainant that she has to indulge in sex trade and she was called only for the said purpose. On hearing the same, the complainant was shocked and refused to do any such act. On her refusal, they left the complainant there. The complainant came back to India on 16.04.2012 after facing lot of troubles and thereafter, she along with her husband, son and the respectables met the accused and demanded her money back. Both the accused admit their guilt in Panchayat and sought one week's time to return the amount but despite this, they did not come on 26.04.2012 before the Panchayat. Hence, the complaint was filed by the complainant.
3. After submission of the challan, the respondents/accused were charge-sheeted by the trial Court under Section 420 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined PW1–Vir Chand who stated that his neighbour Balwinder Ram told him that he is sending his wife Surinder Kaur to Cyprus and he has to give Rs.2,50,000/- to accused–Lachhmi Devi and asked him to accompany to the house of accused. In his presence, an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was handed over to accused–Lachhmi Devi by Balwinder Ram. PW2–Balbir Ram stated that he has given a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to accused–Naresh Rani in the house of Dr. Romi for sending his wife abroad. PW4–Bhulla Ram stated that he had given Rs.22,500/- to his son–Balwinder Ram after withdrawing the same from the society and produced the copy of passbook as Ex.PW4/A. Similaryly, PW5–Piara Ram and PW–Ram Kishan stated that they have lent some amount to Balwinder Ram who took the same for sending his wife abroad. PW7–ASI Nirmal Singh stated that after receiving the copy of FIR, he conducted the enquiry and arrested the accused–Lachhmi Devi as well as Naresh Rani and proved the FIR Ex.PW7/A, the application of the complainant Ex.PW7/B, the enquiry report of DSP Ex.PW7/C apart from the documents i.e. search memo, disclosure statement as Ex.PW7/E to Ex.PW7/H. PW9–Yash Pal, a Manager of the Canara Bank proved that one Jaspal
AI
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
