SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2488

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Rakesh Kainthla, J
AMIT MEHRA – Appellant
Versus
DHINGI DEVI – Respondent
CRMMO/1117/2023



Petitioner Advocates:Sanjay Dalmla ,Respondent Advocate: Suchitra Sen Aditya Kaushal Deepa

Cheating requires fraudulent intent and harm; mere misrepresentation without such intent does not constitute an offence under IPC.

Headnote:(A) Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 415, 416, 419, and 420 - Cheating by personation - The court held that to falsely represent a person for financial gain constitutes cheating by personation, requiring fraudulent intent. The High Court erred in convicting without establishing all elements of cheating. (Paras 15-23)

(B) Ingredients of Cheating - The court reiterated that for cheating, there must be a fraudulent inducement causing harm or damage, which was absent in this case. (Paras 16-18)

(C) Civil vs. Criminal Dispute - The court emphasized that civil disputes should not be criminalized without clear evidence of criminal intent. (Paras 19-22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for cheating by personation related to an affidavit attestation, but the High Court failed to establish the necessary elements of the offence.

Findings of Court:
The conviction was quashed as the essential ingredients of cheating were not satisfied.

Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant's actions constituted cheating and if the High Court erred in its conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere misrepresentation without fraudulent intent does not constitute cheating, and civil disputes should not be treated as criminal without clear evidence.

Result: The criminal complaint was quashed.

Mahmood, J.:

    “That to palm off a young woman as belonging to a caste different to the one to which she really belongs, with the object of obtaining money, amounts to the offence of cheating by personation as defined in Section 416 of the Penal Code, 1860, which must be read in the light of the preceding Section 415.”

15. It was laid down bythe Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Jas v. State of U.P. , (1970) 2 SCC 740 that there should be a fraudulent or dishonest inducement before a person can be held guilty of cheating. It was observed:

    “3. In recording this finding and conviction, the High Court lost sight of the fact that no such charge was framed against the appellant in the trial court. As we have indicated above, the persons, who were cheated or attempted to be cheated, referred to in the charges framed against the appellant, were Madan Lal, Chunni Lal, or the office of the Relief and Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Officer, Saharanpur. There was no charge at all relating to any cheating or attempting to cheat the Oath Commissioner. In fact, the case was never brought to Court with the intention of obtaining conviction of the appellant for any offence of cheating in respect of the Oath Commissioner. Not only was there no charge in this respect, but, in addition, the appellant, when questioned under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the prosecution evidence had been recorded, was not asked to explain evidence relating to such a charge of cheating the Oath Commissioner. No doubt, there was mention of the commission of forgery of affidavits; but the mention of the commission of that offence could not possibly lead the appellant to infer that he was liable to be convicted for abetting the offence of cheating the Oath Commissioner.
    Further, in recording this conviction, the High Court did not even case to examine in detail whether all the ingredients of the offence had been established by the prosecution evidence. The only finding of fact was that the appellant, who was known to the Oath Commissioner, wrongly identified some other person as Govind Ram and got the affidavit attested by the Oath Commissioner as if it was being sworn by Govind Ram. This act of wrong identification committed by the appellant cannot amount to the offence of cheating by personation. Cheating is defined in Section 415 IPC, which is as follows:
    “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 property, 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 that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to ‘cheat’.”
    The ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating are— (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;
    (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, 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 (iii) in cases covered by (ii)(b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.

4. In the present case, the finding of fact recorded only shows that the Oath Commissioner was induced to attest the affidavit by the deception practised by the appellant in wrongly identifying a person as Govind Ram when he was in fact not Govind Ram. That act done by the Oath Commissioner of attesting the affidavit could not, however, possibly cause any damage or harm to the Oath Commissioner in body, mind, reputation or property. The Oath Commissioner was obviously not induced to deliver any property to anybody by this wron

                              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                              1
                              2
                              3
                              4
                              5
                              6
                              7
                              8
                              9
                              10
                              11
                              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                              supreme today icon
                              whatsapp-icon Back to top