Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 27540
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J
Bhagwan – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
CRR 1489/2024
Ghan Shyam Yadav,Advocate General
The court found that the applicants could not be charged with cheating by impersonation as the allegations were solely against a co-accused, thus rendering the charge unsustainable.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 416 and 419 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 216 - Revision against framing of charge - Allegations of cheating by impersonation were directed at a co-accused, not the present applicants, who were merely witnesses - The court found no basis for the charge against the applicants. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Cheating by personation - Definition and scope - The court clarified that the essence of cheating by personation involves pretending to be another person, which was not applicable to the present applicants. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The revision was filed against an order framing charges under Section 419 IPC against the applicants, who were alleged to be witnesses to a transaction involving a co-accused who impersonated another individual.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the framing of charges against the applicants was unsustainable as there were no allegations of their involvement in cheating by impersonation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicants could be charged under Section 419 IPC when the allegations were solely against a co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the allegations of cheating by impersonation were directed at a co-accused, the framing of charges against the applicants was unjustified.
Result: Revision allowed; the impugned order was set aside concerning the present applicants.
The present revision is filed u/Ss.397, 401 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 7.3.2024 passed by I Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar in ST No.102/2015 whereby the court has framed the charge u/S.419 of IPC in exercise of the powers u/S.216 Cr.P.C.
2. Upon perusal of the impugned order and the allegations as per the prosecution case, it is alleged that one co-accused Dwarika impersonated himself as Punamchand and sold the property to one Bhagwan. The allegation against the present applicants are that they are witnesses to the said document.
3. Counsel for applicants submits that there is no allegation of cheating by impersonation so far the present applicants are concerned. The allegation was against co-accused Dwarika who is said to have died during the pendency of the trial.
4. Counsel for State supports the impugned order.
5. After hearing learned counsel for parties, it is apposite to refer the provisions of Secs.416 and 419 of IPC as under:-
- "416. Cheating by personation.--- A person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is."
419. Punishment for cheating by personation.--- whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
6. Upon perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is manifest that the person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.. The explanation further stipulates that offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person.
7. Thus, in the present case, there is no allegation of cheating by personation so far the present applicants are concerned. The allegation of cheating by personation was against co-accused Dwarika. The applicants are said to be only witness of the said documents.
8. In view of the aforesaid, prima facie this court finds that the framing of the charge u/S.419 of IPC in exercise of the powers u/S.216 Cr.P.C is unsustainable. The revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside so far it relates to the present applicants.
