Supreme Court of India
REKHA JAIN versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. on 10 May 2022
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
A
REKHA JAIN
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 749 of 2022)
BMAY 10, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s. 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducingdelivery of property – Necessary ingredient of s. 420 – Held: Tomake out a case against a person for the offence u/s. 420, thereCmust be a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver anyproperty to any other person – On facts, no allegation at all againstaccused-appellant of any inducement by her to deceive and todeliver the gold jewellery – Allegations of dishonest inducementand cheating against her husband – Thus, it cannot be said thatDshe has committed any offence u/s. 420 for which she ischargesheeted – Thus, the High Court erred in not quashing thecriminal proceedings against appellant – In view thereof, the criminalproceedings against the appellant for the offence u/s. 420 is quashed– Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482.EPartly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : As per Section 420 IPC, whoever cheats andthereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver anyproperty to any person, can be said to have committed the offenceunder Section 420 IPC. Therefore, to make out a case against aFperson for the offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be adishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any propertyto any other person. In the instant case, there is no allegation atall against accused-appellant of any inducement by her to deceiveand to deliver the gold jewellery. The allegations of dishonestinducement and cheating are against her husband-accused.GTherefore, considering the allegations in the FIR/complaint asthey are, and in the absence of any allegation of dishonestinducement by appellant, it cannot be said that she has committedany offence under Section 420 IPC for which she is nowchargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has committed a graveHerror in not quashing the criminal proceedings against appellant
for the offence under Section 420 IPC. This is a fit case wherethe High Court could have exercised its powers under Section482 Cr.PC and to quash the criminal proceedings against appellantfor the offence under Section 420 IPC. In view thereof, the criminalproceedings against the appellant-accused for the offence underSection 420 IPC is quashed. However, it is clarified that what isquashed is the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section420 IPC only and not for any other offence(s), if any, committedby the accused. [Para 8, 9][561-D-H; 562-A-B]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo.749 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.09.2020 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No.3442 of 2020.
Ranjith Kumar, Febin Mathew Varghese, Advs. for the Appellant.
Saket Gogia, Dhawesh Pahuja, Mahesh Kumar, Ms. DevikaKhanna, Ms. V. D. Khanna for M/s. VMZ Chambers, Advs. for theRespondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 15.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka atBengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 3442/2020, by which, the High Courthas dismissed the said criminal petition and has refused to quash theFIR/criminal proceedings against petitioners, the original writ petitionersbefore the High Court have preferred the present appeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by order dated08.01.2021, the present appeal in respect of petitioner No. 1 (KamaleshMulchand Jain) has been dismissed and the notice has been issued inrespect of appellant – petitioner No. 2 (Rekha Jain). Therefore, thepresent appeal is required to be considered qua accused Rekha Jainonly.
3. That respondent No. 2 herein – original complainant lodged acomplaint against one Kamalesh Mulchand Jain (husband of Rekha Jain),alleging, inter-alia, that by misrepresentation, inducement and with anintention to cheat him, the said Kamalesh Mulchand Jain had taken away AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
A2 kg and 27 grams of gold jewellery. A complaint was registered as FIR/Crime Case No. 75/2020 dated 13.03.2020 for the offence under Section420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). During the course of the investigation,it was found that appellant – Rekha Jain was absconding and the goldjewellery, taken away from the original complainant by her husband –Kamalesh Mulchand Jain, was with her, therefore, the investigation wasBcarried out against her also, which led to the said Rekha Jain to approachthe High Court by way of a petition under section 482 of Cr.PC to quashthe FIR against her for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. By theimpugned order, the High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings/FIR, even in so far as the accused – Rekha Jain is concerned. Hence,Cthe present appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – accused– Rekha Jain has vehemently submitted that considering the allegationsin the complaint/FIR as they are, there are no allegations that accusedRekha Jain induced the complainant to deliver the gold jewellery. It isDsubmitted that the entire allegations can be said to be against KamaleshMulchand Jain, who happens to be the husband of the appellant – RekhaJain. It is submitted that therefore, when there are no allegations ofinducement by present Appellant – Accused Rekha Jain, it cannot besaid that the appellant – accused – Rekha Jain has committed any offenceas alleged for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.E
It is submitted that therefore the High Court has committed agrave error in not quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellant– accused - Rekha Jain for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.
5. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Saket Gogia,Flearned counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant.
5.1 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the original complainant that the appellant – accused – RekhaJain is found to be in possession of the gold jewellery, which was takenaway from the complainant. That even the appellant – accused – RekhaGJain was absconding. It is contended that it cannot be said that the appellanthas not committed any offence at all. That the appellant – accused maybe charged for the other offences of keeping the gold jewellery, which isproperty obtained by her husband by cheating and deceiving. Therefore,it is prayed not to quash the criminal proceedings/FIR even so far as theappellant – accused - Rekha Jain is concerned.H
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused – Rekha Jain– the appellant has submitted that she has been chargesheeted for theoffence under Section 420 of IPC and the said accused is shown asaccused No. 4.
7. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties at length.
8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the offence allegedagainst the appellant – accused – Rekha Jain is for the offence underSection 420 of IPC. She has been now chargedsheeted for the saidoffence. However, considering the allegations in FIR/complaint, it canbe seen that the entire and all the allegations are against the accusedKamalesh Mulchand Jain. In the complaint/FIR, there are no allegationswhatsoever to the effect that the accused - Rekha Jain induced thecomplainant to part with the gold jewellery. Therefore, in the absence ofany allegation of inducement by the accused Rekha Jain, she cannot beprosecuted for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. There must be adishonest inducement by the accused.
As per Section 420 of IPC, whoever cheats and thereby dishonestlyinduces the person de-ceived to deliver any property to any person, canbe said to have committed the offence under Section 420 of IPC.Therefore, to make out a case against a person for the offence underSection 420 of IPC, there must be a dishonest inducement to deceive aperson to deliver any property to any other person. In the present case,there is no allegation at all against accused – Rekha Jain of anyinducement by her to deceive and to deliver the gold jewellery. Theallegations of dishonest inducement and cheating are against her husband– accused – Kamalesh Mulchand Jain. Therefore, considering theallegations in the FIR/complaint as they are, and in the absence of anyallegation of dishonest inducement by Rekha Jain, it cannot be said thatshe has committed any offence under Section 420 of IPC for which sheis now chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has committed a graveerror in not quashing the criminal proceedings against Rekha Jain for theoffence under Section 420 of IPC. This is a fit case where the HighCourt could have exercised its powers under Section 482 of Cr.PC andto quash the criminal proceedings against Rekha Jain for the offenceunder Section 420 of IPC.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds in part. The criminal proceedings against the AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aappellant – accused – Rekha Jain for the offence under Section 420 ofIPC is hereby quashed. However, it is clarified that what is quashed isthe criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 420 of IPC onlyand not for any other offence(s), if any, committed by the accused –Rekha Jain. The present appeal is limited to the offence under Section420 of IPC only as at present she is chargesheeted only for the offenceBunder Section 420 of IPC. The present appeal is allowed to the aforesaidextent.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal partly allowed.
C
D
E
F
G
H