2017 (8) TMI 1703 - SC - Indian Laws

Application for discharge alleging that neither sufficient allegations are made nor evidence to prosecute the Appellant Under Section 420 Indian Penal Code was produced - application was filed by the Appellant seeking discharge on the ground that there are no evidence to frame charge Under Section 420 Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - It is clear that ingredients of Section 420 Indian Penal Code are not made out in the present case, either from the First Information Report or from any other material. From the First Information Report as extracted above only allegation made against the Appellant was that he accompanied his father Major P.C. Sahay (Retd.) when he assured that the money of the applicants will not be lost and it shall be the responsibility of his father (late P.C. Sahay). In the First Information Report even allegation of making assurance was not made against the Appellant but was made against Major P.C. Sahay (Retd.), father of the Appellant. There was no allegation that the Appellant fraudulently or dishonestly induced the complainant to deposit money - This Court in Arun Bhandari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 2013 (1) TMI 1049 - SUPREME COURT , has held that it is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating. The Chief Judicial Magistrate while rejecting the application of the Appellant for seeking discharge has not even referred to any allegation or evidence on the basis of which it can be said that ingredients of Section 420 Indian Penal Code were made out in the facts of the present case - in the present case ingredients of Section 420 Indian Penal Code were not made out so as to frame any charge Under Section 420 Indian Penal Code against the Appellant. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 28.02.2007 and the judgment of the High Court dated 21.10.2016 are set aside. The Appellant shall stand discharged from the charges Under Section 420 Indian Penal Code - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the ingredients of Section 420 IPC were present in the allegations against the Appellant.
2. Whether the Appellant should be discharged from the charges under Section 420 IPC.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Ingredients of Section 420 IPC:
The primary contention revolves around whether the allegations against the Appellant fulfill the criteria for cheating under Section 420 IPC. Section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. For a charge under this section, the prosecution must establish that the accused had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, which led to the delivery of property.

The court examined the First Information Report (FIR) and the statements made by the complainant and his wife. The FIR alleged that Major P.C. Sahay (Retd.), the Appellant's father, assured the complainant that their money would be safe and took responsibility for it. The Appellant was merely present during this assurance. The court noted that there was no allegation that the Appellant himself made any fraudulent or dishonest inducement. The court referenced several precedents, including Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar and Dalip Kaur v. Jagnar Singh, emphasizing that mere presence or subsequent failure to fulfill a promise does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intention is shown at the inception.

Issue 2: Discharge from Charges:
The Appellant sought discharge on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to frame charges under Section 420 IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) rejected this application, citing that the complainant deposited money based on assurances from both Major P.C. Sahay (Retd.) and the Appellant. However, the High Court dismissed the revision, stating no manifest error or illegality was pointed out.

The Supreme Court scrutinized the CJM's order and the High Court's brief dismissal. It reiterated that for a charge of cheating, there must be clear evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of inducement. The court found that the allegations against the Appellant did not meet this criterion. The court highlighted that the Appellant's mere presence and subsequent events do not suffice to establish the requisite mens rea for cheating.

The court concluded that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC were not made out against the Appellant. Consequently, it set aside the orders of the CJM and the High Court, discharging the Appellant from the charges under Section 420 IPC.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the lower courts. It held that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC were not established against the Appellant, thereby discharging him from the charges in Criminal Case No. 545 of 2002.