P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

A.M. Mohan Vs. The State represented by SHO and Ors. (Neutral Citation - 2024 INSC 233) - (Supreme Court) (20 Mar 2024)

Dishonest inducement is the sine qua non to attract the provisions of Sections 415 and 420 of IPC

MANU/SC/0227/2024

Criminal

The present appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, whereby the High Court rejected the petition filed by the present Appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to call for the records and to quash the First Information Report ("FIR") registered in connection with the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

For attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.

The only allegation against the present Appellant is that, Accused No. 1 executed the GPA in favour of the complainant in respect of the land which is purchased from the present Appellant-Accused No. 3. The other allegation is that upon instructions of Accused No. 1 to transfer Rs. 20,00,000 to Accused No. 3's Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Account towards sale of the land made by the Appellant-Accused No. 3 to Accused No. 1, the complainant had transferred online a sum of Rs. 20,00,000.

It is an undisputed position that, upon receipt of the said amount of Rs. 20,00,000, the present Appellant had transferred the land in question by sale deed in favour of Accused No. 1. It is also undisputed that, thereafter Accused No. 1 executed the GPA in favour of the complainant on the same day. After the sale deed was executed in favour of Accused No. 1 by the Appellant-Accused No. 3, though the complaint narrates various instances thereafter, no role is attributed to the present Appellant.

No role of inducement has been attributed to the present Appellant. Rather, from the perusal of the FIR and the charge-sheet, it would reveal that there was no transaction of any nature directly between the Appellant and the complainant. The version, if accepted at its face value, would reveal that, at the instance of Accused No. 1, the complainant transferred the amount of Rs. 20,00,000 in the account of the Appellant. On receipt of the said amount, the Appellant immediately executed the sale deed in favour of Accused No. 1, who thereafter executed the GPA in favour of the complainant. After that, no role is attributed to the present Appellant and whatever happened thereafter, has happened between Accused No. 1, the complainant and the other Accused persons. In that view of the matter, the FIR or the charge-sheet, even if taken at its face value, does not disclose the ingredients to attract the provision of Section 420 of IPC qua the Appellant.

The dishonest inducement is the sine qua non to attract the provisions of Sections 415 and 420 of IPC. The same is totally lacking qua the present Appellant. In that view of the matter, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present Appellant would be nothing else but amount to abuse of process of law resulting in miscarriage of justice. The order of the High Court is quashed and set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : FIR   PROVISION   APPLICABILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved