2000 JTR(SC) 505
2000 2 AICLR 9 ; 2000 AIR(SC) 2474 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 2600 ; 2000 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 702 ; 2000 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 1375 ; 2000 CriLR 417 ; 2000 1 Crimes(SC) 297 ; 2000 CrLJ 3487 ; 2000 1 DMC 385 ; 2000 2 EastCrC(SC) 498 ; 2000 1 JCC 368 ; 2000 2 JT 627 ; 2000 2 KLT(SN) 2 ; 2000 1 OLR 472 ; 2000 2 RCR(Cri) 290 ; 2000 2 Scale 234 ; 2000 3 SCC 693 ; 2000 SCC(Cri) 733 ; 2000 SCC(Cri) 753 ; 2000 3 SCJ 49 ; 2000 2 SCR 123 ; 2000 2 SLT 540 ; 2000 1 UJ 675 ; 2000 KHC 476 ; 2000 2 Supreme 165
2000(2) Supreme 165
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad & D.P. Wadhwa. JJ.
G.V. Rao -Petitioner
versus
L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3164 of 1999
Decided on 6-3-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Manoj Kumar, Koka S. Kumar, Manoj Kumar Misra, A.S. Bhasme, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
To attract Section 415 of IPC it is not always necessary that the offence of cheating must relate to properties; intention, inducement to do or omit to do an act causing damage, harm or reputation would amount to cheating.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.415
(A) The referenced statutes include Article 136 of the Constitution and Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 415 defines cheating as intentionally deceiving a person to induce that person to part with property or to consent to the retention of property, or to do or omit to do any act causing damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, with the requirement of dishonest or fraudulent intent in the first part and intentional inducement in the second part. The facts of this case fall within the second limb of Section 415, where deception regarding caste identity led the complainant to enter into marriage, causing harm to reputation and personal rights, which falls within the scope of cheating despite the absence of a property claim, as interpreted under Section 415 and illustrated by prior case law on personation and misrepresentation of caste.
(B) Key legal principles include that cheating under Section 415 IPC requires intentional deception with a dominant motive, and the offense may be established even without an element of property if there is intentional inducement causing harm to body, mind, reputation or property. The mens rea of deceit must exist at the time of inducement, and the act or omission resulting from deception must cause damage or harm. The High Court was incorrect in conflating the offense with property-related offenses, and Article 136 intervention is permissible when there is a substantial question of law or gross injustice.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a post-doctoral fellow, placed an advertisement seeking a marriage proposal. Respondent No. 1 presented Respondent No. 4, representing her as belonging to the Thurupukapu Community, though she actually belonged to the Kondakapu Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner, who belonged to the Gujala Balija Community, was misled about the caste of the respondent and solemnized the marriage. Later, the petitioner discovered the misrepresentation. An FIR was registered under Section 415, 419, and 420 read with Section 34 IPC, but the High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that Section 415 relates only to property. A counter-case under Section 498-A IPC is also pending.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Courts interpretation of Section 415 was incorrect, as the second part of the section does not require the element of property and covers acts or omissions caused by intentional deception resulting in harm to reputation. The Court observed that the offense of cheating was made out by the misrepresentation of caste leading the petitioner to marry, thereby suffering harm. However, the Court declined to interfere under Article 136, treating the petition as being without merit.
Issues:
Whether the offense of cheating under Section 415 IPC requires the element of property, and whether the High Court was correct in quashing the FIR on that ground. Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its discretion under Article 136 to interfere with the High Courts order in the face of ongoing criminal proceedings, including a counter-case under Section 498-A IPC.
Ratio Decidendi:
The second part of Section 415 IPC applies when a person intentionally induces another to do or omit an act causing harm to body, mind, reputation or property, and the offense is established by proof of deceitful intention and harmful consequences, irrespective of property. The High Courts narrow construction limiting cheating to property offenses was erroneous. However, the Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136 on the merits of the case.
Result:
The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, with the Supreme Court upholding the correctness of not interfering while holding that the factual matrix did not warrant Article 136 intervention.
(A) The referenced statutes include Article 136 of the Constitution and Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 415 defines cheating as intentionally deceiving a person to induce that person to part with property or to consent to the retention of property, or to do or omit to do any act causing damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, with the requirement of dishonest or fraudulent intent in the first part and intentional inducement in the second part. The facts of this case fall within the second limb of Section 415, where deception regarding caste identity led the complainant to enter into marriage, causing harm to reputation and personal rights, which falls within the scope of cheating despite the absence of a property claim, as interpreted under Section 415 and illustrated by prior case law on personation and misrepresentation of caste.
(B) Key legal principles include that cheating under Section 415 IPC requires intentional deception with a dominant motive, and the offense may be established even without an element of property if there is intentional inducement causing harm to body, mind, reputation or property. The mens rea of deceit must exist at the time of inducement, and the act or omission resulting from deception must cause damage or harm. The High Court was incorrect in conflating the offense with property-related offenses, and Article 136 intervention is permissible when there is a substantial question of law or gross injustice.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a post-doctoral fellow, placed an advertisement seeking a marriage proposal. Respondent No. 1 presented Respondent No. 4, representing her as belonging to the Thurupukapu Community, though she actually belonged to the Kondakapu Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner, who belonged to the Gujala Balija Community, was misled about the caste of the respondent and solemnized the marriage. Later, the petitioner discovered the misrepresentation. An FIR was registered under Section 415, 419, and 420 read with Section 34 IPC, but the High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that Section 415 relates only to property. A counter-case under Section 498-A IPC is also pending.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Courts interpretation of Section 415 was incorrect, as the second part of the section does not require the element of property and covers acts or omissions caused by intentional deception resulting in harm to reputation. The Court observed that the offense of cheating was made out by the misrepresentation of caste leading the petitioner to marry, thereby suffering harm. However, the Court declined to interfere under Article 136, treating the petition as being without merit.
Issues:
Whether the offense of cheating under Section 415 IPC requires the element of property, and whether the High Court was correct in quashing the FIR on that ground. Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its discretion under Article 136 to interfere with the High Courts order in the face of ongoing criminal proceedings, including a counter-case under Section 498-A IPC.
Ratio Decidendi:
The second part of Section 415 IPC applies when a person intentionally induces another to do or omit an act causing harm to body, mind, reputation or property, and the offense is established by proof of deceitful intention and harmful consequences, irrespective of property. The High Courts narrow construction limiting cheating to property offenses was erroneous. However, the Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136 on the merits of the case.
Result:
The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, with the Supreme Court upholding the correctness of not interfering while holding that the factual matrix did not warrant Article 136 intervention.
MensRea - Cited to establish that guilty intention (mens rea) is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating under Section 415 IPC.
Intention - Cited to clarify that the intention to deceive must exist at the time when the inducement was offered for the offence of cheating.
Cheating - Cited as an old Allahabad High Court decision holding that palm off a young woman as belonging to a different caste with the object of obtaining money amounts to cheating by personation under Section 416 IPC read with Section 415.
Cheating - Cited as an approved decision holding that a prostitute may be charged for cheating under Section 417 if intercourse was induced by misrepresentation that she did not suffer from syphilis.
Cheating - Cited as an approved Calcutta High Court decision where persons were convicted under Section 417 for palming off girls as women of a higher caste and inducing Rajputs to marry them fraudulently.
Cheating - Cited as an approved decision where a person was induced to contract marriage under the false impression that the girl was a Brahminee, and the inducer was held liable under Section 417 IPC.
JUDGMENT
S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-This Special Leave Petition was dismissed by us on 4.10.1999. We, hereinbelow, give our reasons for dismissing the Special Leave Petition.
2. The petitioner is a Post-Doctoral fellow at Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad. He invited marriage proposals for himself through advertisement in Deccan Chronicle dated 27th of January, 1994, in pursuance of which respondent No.1 approached the petitioner and furnished the particulars of respondent No.4 who is his sister. It was represented by respondent No.1 that respondent No.4 was born on 29th of June, 1966 and they belonged to Thurupukapu Community. The petitioner himself gave out that he belonged to Gujala Balija Community which was a forward community and, therefore, he wanted a wife from a forward community. The parents of respondents No. 4, who are respondents 2 to 3 in this petition, met the parents of the petitioner and they talked and the marriage proposal was finalised. Betrothel ceremony took place on 27th of June, 1994 and later the marriage took place on 19.8.94. On 4th of March, 1997, the petitioner, allegedly, came to know that respondents 1 to 4 belonged to Kondakapu Community, which was a Scheduled Tribe, and it was then that the realised that the misrepresenting themselves as members of Thurupukapu Community, they had lured the petitioner into wedlock, for which the petitioner would not have agreed at all, had he known that the respondents did not belong to Thurupukapu Community but belonged to Kondakapu Community. It was in these circumstances that he filed a complaint in the Court on 10.7.1996 under Section 415, 419, 420 read with Section 34 IPC which was referred to Station House Officer, Police Station Alwal, Rangareddy District, Andhra Pradesh for investigation and report. Since the investigation was considerably delayed, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 11477 of 1997 in the High Court for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Station House Officer to expedite the investigation. While the Writ Petition was pending, an affidavit was filed by the Station House Officer that after completing the investigation, he had submitted the chargesheet in the Court on 28.5.1997 against the respondents. The respondents, however, approached the High Court through a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of the FIR which was allowed by the impugned judgment and it is in these circumstances that this petition has been filed in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint (FIR) as a chargesheet had already been submitted after the investigation and a prima facie case was made out against the respondents. He has further contended that the High Court was wrong in its interpretation of Section 415 IPC.
3. Before considering the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits, we may state another important fact that the petitioner himself is facing a case under Section 498-A IPC instituted by the respondents against him. It is stated in the petition that this prosecution was launched by the respondents against the petitioner as a counter-blast to the notice dated 13.6.1995 which was issued by him to respondent No.1 as to why he had misrepresented about his caste and why had he represented to the petitioner that he belonged to Thurupukapu Community instead of Kondakapu Community.
4. The CHEATING is defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code which provides as under :-
"415. Cheating.-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived 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".
Explanation.-A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."
5. The High Court quashed the proceedings principally on the ground that Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offences against properties and, therefore, Section 415 must also necessarily relate to the property which, in the instant case, is not involved and, consequently, the FIR was liable to be quashed. The broad proposition on which the High Court proceeded is not correct. While the first part of the definition relates to property, the second part need not necessarily relate to property. The second part is reproduced below :-
"........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".
6. This part speaks of intentional deception which must be intended not only to induce the person deceived to do or omit to do something but also to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. The intentional deception presupposes the existence of a dominant motive of the person making the inducement. Such inducement should have led the person deceived or induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not have done or omitted to do if he were not deceived. The further requirement is that such act or omission should have caused damage or harm to body, mind, reputation or property.
7. As mentioned above, Section 415 has two parts. While in the first part, the person must "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" induce the complainant to deliver any property; in the second part, the person should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. That is to say, in the first part, inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent. In the second part, the inducement should be intentional. As observed by this Court in Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay1, a guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. In order, therefore, to secure conviction of a person for the offence of cheating, "mens rea" on the part of that person, must be established. It was also observed in Mahadeo Prasad v. State of West Bengal2, that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was offered.
8. Thus, so far as second part of Section 415 is concerned, "property", at no stage, is involved. Here it is the doing of an act or omission to do an act by the complainant, as a result of intentional inducement by the accused, which is material. Such inducement should result in the doing of an act or omission to do an act as a result of which the person concerned should have suffered or was likely to suffer damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property. In an old decision of the Allahabad High Court in Empress v. Sheoram and another3, it was held by 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 Indian Penal Code, which must be read in the light of the preceding, Section 415."
9. In an another old decision in Queen Empress v. Ramka Kom Sadhu4, it was held that a prostitute may be charged for cheating under Section 417 if the intercourse was induced by any misrepresentation on her part that she did not suffer from syphilis.
10. In Queen v. Dabee Singh and others5, the Calcutta High Court convicted a person under Section 417 who had brought two girls and palmed them off as women of a much higher caste than they really were and married to two Rajputs after receiving usual bonus. It was further held that the two Rajputs who married the two girls on the faith that they were marrying women of their own caste and status, were fraudulently and dishonestly induced by deception to do a thing (that is to say, to marry women of a caste wholly prohibited to them) which but for the deception practised upon them by the accused, they would have omitted to do. In another case which was almost similar to the one mentioned above, namely, Queen v. Puddomonie Boistobee6, a person was induced to part with his money and to contract marriage under the false impression that the girl he was marrying was a Brahminee. The person who induced the complainant into marrying that girl was held liable for punishment under Section 417 IPC.
11. Having regard to the above discussion, the High Court, as we have already observed earlier, was not correct in its interpretation of the provisions contained under Section 415 IPC but the important question for our consideration is that, should we, having regard to the facts to this case, interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution.
12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about repprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed are accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.
13. The petitioner himself is a Scientist at the Centre for DNA Finger Printing & Diagnostics, Hyderabad which is a prestigious Institution of the country. In this capacity, he can be reasonably presumed to be aware of the bio-diversity at the Cellular and Molecular level amongst human beings without the "caste" having any role in the field of Human Biotechnology.
It was for these reasons that the Petition, being without merit, was dismissed on October 4, 1999.
(C.R.) SLP dismissed.
*************