1999 JTR(SC) 702
1999 3 AICLR 39 ; 1999 AIR(SC) 2332 ; 1999 AIR(SCW) 2429 ; 1999 2 ALD(Cri)(SC) 340 ; 1999 39 AllCriC 339 ; 2000 1 BBCJ(SC) 17 ; 1999 4 BomCR(SC) 248 ; 1999 CriLR 441 ; 1999 3 Crimes(SC) 117 ; 1999 CrLJ 3661 ; 1999 2 EastCrC(SC) 190 ; 1999 2 JCC 333 ; 1999 4 JT 537 ; 1999 2 KLJ 272 ; 1999 3 KLT(SN) 13 ; 1999 2 OLR 344 ; 1999 2 PLJR(SC) 83 ; 1999 3 RCR(Cri) 587 ; 1999 4 Scale 86 ; 1999 5 SCC 740 ; 1999 SCC(Cri) 1047 ; 1999 3 SCR 870 ; 1999 2 UJ 1270 ; 1999 KHC 717 ; 1999 6 Supreme 47
1999(6) Supreme 47
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
K.T. Thomas and M.B. Shah, JJ.
Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwandadha Maharaj -Appellant
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1228 of 1999
Decided on 15-7-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : A.K. Bajpai, Radha Shyam Jena, Advocates.
For the Respondents : G. Prabhakar, Advocate.
Important points
1. If somebody represents to another that he has divine powers and directly or indirectly makes that another person believe that he has such divine power it is inducement referred to in Section 415 of IPC.
2. If somebody represents another that he possesses divine healing power and makes another person to respond and give money or article to inducer and that another person does not get desired result, he is a victim of fraudulent representation in such a situation Court can presume the offence of cheating within ambit of Section 420 IPC.
3. Before giving direction for fresh investigation under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., Court need not give opportunity of being heard to accused.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.173(8)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.415, S.420
(A) The impugned order pertains to an appeal against the dismissal of a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings for cheating under Section 420 read with inducement under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, in a case where the accused, styled as a godman, represented to a complainant that he possessed divine healing powers and demanded payment for such powers, and the police, after filing a final report, proceeded to reinvestigate the case under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure govern the power of the police to conduct further investigation after laying a final report, and Section 415 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offense of cheating by fraudulent misrepresentation of facts or inducement and prescribes its punishment, and the applicability of these statutory provisions determines the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to proceed with the investigation and the liability of the accused for alleged fraudulent conduct.
(B) No fraud can arise from mere invocation of divine powers through rituals and prayers; however, if a person represents to another that he possesses divine powers and induces that other to part with money in reliance on such representation, with the result that the induced person does not receive the promised benefit, such conduct constitutes cheating under Section 420 read with Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code; further, under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police are empowered to conduct further investigation after filing a final report without being obliged to hear the accused, and the court has concomitant power to direct such further investigation; additionally, the court can presume the commission of the offense of cheating where the accused fails to rebut the presumption arising from fraudulent representations.
Facts of the case:
The accused, a self-styled godman, assured a complainant that he would cure the complainant's congenitally dumb daughter through his divine powers upon payment of a sum of money. The complainant paid the initial amount and further sums, but the girl showed no improvement, and the accused postponed the time frame for the cure. Subsequently, it came to the complainant's knowledge through newspaper reports that the accused had defrauded other persons, leading the complainant to lodge an FIR. The police initially filed a report treating the matter as a mistake of fact, but on Magistrate's direction, a reinvestigation was conducted, and a subsequent report held that the accused had committed an offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offense, and the accused moved the High Court to quash the proceedings on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction to order reinvestigation and that the allegations did not constitute cheating, which was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly dismissed the petition, as the allegations disclosed an offense of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 415, the police were competent to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure without being obliged to afford the accused an opportunity to be heard before such direction, and the accused failed to rebut the presumption of fraudulent intent arising from his representations regarding divine powers.
Issues:
Whether representations of divine powers coupled with inducement to pay money, resulting in non-performance, amount to cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code; whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to order reinvestigation after the final police report; whether the police are required to provide an opportunity to the accused before directing further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and whether the allegations disclose an offense of cheating.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where a person fraudulently represents that he possesses supernatural or divine powers and induces another to pay money in reliance on such representation, and the induced party does not receive the promised benefit, such conduct falls within the ambit of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and the police are empowered under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to conduct further investigation after filing a final report without being obliged to hear the accused, and the court has the concurrent power to direct such investigation; the court can presume the offense of cheating in such cases and the burden lies on the accused to rebut the presumption.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, and the order of the High Court refusing to quash the proceedings is upheld.
(A) The impugned order pertains to an appeal against the dismissal of a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings for cheating under Section 420 read with inducement under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, in a case where the accused, styled as a godman, represented to a complainant that he possessed divine healing powers and demanded payment for such powers, and the police, after filing a final report, proceeded to reinvestigate the case under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure govern the power of the police to conduct further investigation after laying a final report, and Section 415 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offense of cheating by fraudulent misrepresentation of facts or inducement and prescribes its punishment, and the applicability of these statutory provisions determines the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to proceed with the investigation and the liability of the accused for alleged fraudulent conduct.
(B) No fraud can arise from mere invocation of divine powers through rituals and prayers; however, if a person represents to another that he possesses divine powers and induces that other to part with money in reliance on such representation, with the result that the induced person does not receive the promised benefit, such conduct constitutes cheating under Section 420 read with Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code; further, under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police are empowered to conduct further investigation after filing a final report without being obliged to hear the accused, and the court has concomitant power to direct such further investigation; additionally, the court can presume the commission of the offense of cheating where the accused fails to rebut the presumption arising from fraudulent representations.
Facts of the case:
The accused, a self-styled godman, assured a complainant that he would cure the complainant's congenitally dumb daughter through his divine powers upon payment of a sum of money. The complainant paid the initial amount and further sums, but the girl showed no improvement, and the accused postponed the time frame for the cure. Subsequently, it came to the complainant's knowledge through newspaper reports that the accused had defrauded other persons, leading the complainant to lodge an FIR. The police initially filed a report treating the matter as a mistake of fact, but on Magistrate's direction, a reinvestigation was conducted, and a subsequent report held that the accused had committed an offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offense, and the accused moved the High Court to quash the proceedings on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction to order reinvestigation and that the allegations did not constitute cheating, which was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly dismissed the petition, as the allegations disclosed an offense of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 415, the police were competent to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure without being obliged to afford the accused an opportunity to be heard before such direction, and the accused failed to rebut the presumption of fraudulent intent arising from his representations regarding divine powers.
Issues:
Whether representations of divine powers coupled with inducement to pay money, resulting in non-performance, amount to cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code; whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to order reinvestigation after the final police report; whether the police are required to provide an opportunity to the accused before directing further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and whether the allegations disclose an offense of cheating.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where a person fraudulently represents that he possesses supernatural or divine powers and induces another to pay money in reliance on such representation, and the induced party does not receive the promised benefit, such conduct falls within the ambit of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and the police are empowered under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to conduct further investigation after filing a final report without being obliged to hear the accused, and the court has the concurrent power to direct such investigation; the court can presume the offense of cheating in such cases and the burden lies on the accused to rebut the presumption.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, and the order of the High Court refusing to quash the proceedings is upheld.
Judgment
Thomas, J.-Leave granted.
2. A godman is now in the dock. One who was initiated by him as his devotee has later turned to be his betenoire, and the godman is facing a prosecution for the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. When he moved the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings pending against him, the motion was dismissed as per the impugned order against which the present appeal has been filed by special leave.
3. Facts, thus far developed, are stated below :
An FIR happened to be registered on the complaint lodged by one Venkatakrishna Reddy with the Town Police Station, Nellore, containing the following allegations. Appellant (Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishanandha Maharaj) who is a youngman, son of a teacher of Gummaluru Village (A.P.) claimed to possess occult faculties and attracted a number of devotees. He represented to have divine healing powers through his touches, particularly of chronic diseases. Complainant approached him for healing his 15 year old daughter who is congenitally a dumb child. Appellant assured the complainant that the little girl would be cured of her impairment through his divine powers. He demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lac as consideration to be paid in instalments. The first instalment demanded was Rs. 10,000/- which, after some bargaining, was fixed at Rs. 5,000/-. Complainant paid that amount and later he paid a further amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards incidental expenses. He waited eagerly for improvement of his dump child till 1994 which was the time limit indicated by the appellant for the girl to start speaking. As the child remained the same, complainant began to entertain doubts. Appellants postponed the time limit till August 1994 for the girl to develop speech capacity. A little more amount of Rs. 516/- was collected for performance of a yagyan. But unfortunately nothing of such thing brought about any change in the girl. In the meanwhile, news of some other persons defrauded by the appellant reached the ears of the complainant as newspapers started publishing such other activities indulged in by the appellant. In one such publication it was mentioned that the appellant had mobilised .
more than a crore of rupees from different devotees. It was then that the complainant realised the fraud committed by the appellant, according to the complainant. Hence a complainant was lodged with the police for cheating.
4. The police conducted investigation and on 15.12.1994 laid final report before the Magistrate concerned by referring the case as “mistake of fact” mainly on the ground that this is a kind of religious belief “prevalent in India among devotees of God.” According to the appellant, this was not a case of cheating or breach of trust. But the Magistrate was not prepared to give accord to the said report. On 2.8.1995 he ordered for “reinvestigation of the case”.
5. Pursuant to the said order, the police reinvestigated and filed a report on 15.9.1997 holding that appellant has committed the offence under Section 420 of the IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on receipt of the said report and issued warrant of arrest against the appellant.
6. Appellant moved the High Court for quashing the proceedings on two grounds. First is that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to order reinvestigation after receipt of the first report of the police, without affording an opportunity to the appellant. Second is that allegations of the complainant would not constitute an offence of cheating. But the High Court dismissed the petition for which the impugned order was passed.
7. Learned counsel contended that no offence of cheating can be discerned from the allegations, particularly in view of the admitted fact that the complainant reposed faith only in the divine powers which appellant would only have offered to invoke through rituals and prayers.
8. If somebody offers his prayers to God for healing the sick, there cannot normally be any element of fraud. But if he represents to another that he has divine powers and either directly or indirectly makes that another person believe that he has such divine powers, it is inducement referred to Section 415 of the IPC. Anybody who respondents to such inducement pursuant to it and gives the inducer money or any other article and does not get the desired result is a victim of the fraudulent representation. Court can in such a situation presume that the offence of cheating falling within the ambit of Section 420 of the IPC has been committed. It is for the accused, in such a situation, to rebut the presumptiom.
9. So the contention that the allegations do not disclose an offence under Section 420 of the IPC has to be repelled and we are of the opinion that the Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the said offence.
10. Power of the police to conduct further investigation, after laying final report, is recognised under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even after the court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open to the police to conduct further investigation. This has been so stated by this Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.)1. The only rider provided by the aforesaid decision is that it would be desirable that the police should inform the court and seek formal permission to make further investigation.
11. In such a situation the power of the court to direct the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173(8) to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on the court would only result in encumbering the court with the burden of searching for all the potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard. As law does not required it, we would not burden the magistrate with such an obligation.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to interfere with the order passed by the magistrate. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.
*************