Archana Rana v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2021)- Cheating Is Essential To Constitute Offence u/s 420 IPC

JUDGEMENT SUMMARY: Archana Rana v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2021)- Cheating Is Essential To Constitute Offence u/s 420 IPC

DATE: 1st March, 2021
 

JUDGES

• Justice M.R. Shah
• Justice D.Y. Chandrachudh

PARTIES: Archana Rana (APPELLANT)
State of Uttar Pradesh (RESPONDENT)

SUBJECT: The following judgement deals with sections 419, 420, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC which criminalises cheating, dishonest inducement to deliver property, voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult and criminal intimidation respectively. The question before the court was whether the allegations in the complaint constitute the necessary ingredients of the offences under the said provisions.

AN OVERVIEW

1. The Supreme Court in the present case is hearing an appeal against the judgement of Allahabad High Court by which the court refused to quash the chargesheet as preferred by the appellant in her application.

2. It was alleged by the respondent that the appellant’s husband had taken a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 from him for the employment of his son. But, the son did not receive any employment and when they asked for return of money, the appellant assaulted them, threatened to get them implicated n false criminal charges and pushed them out of her house.

3. A chargesheet was filed against the appellant for the offences under section 419, 420, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. Subsequently, the appellant approached the High Court to quash the complaint which dismissed the application.

4. Aggrieved by the judgement the appellant has thus approached the Supreme Court. It was contended by the respondent that the averments in the complaint does not constitute of the necessary ingredients for the offence under section 419 and 420 of IPC. The appellant relied on the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam and Dr. Lakshman v. State of Karnataka.

5. The respondent could not satisfy the court on how the case is made out against the appellant u/s 419 and 420 of IPC but contended that at least a case is made out against the appellant for offences u/s 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

INDIAN PENAL CODE

• Section 419- Punishment for cheating by personation-Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either de­scription for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
• Section 420- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person de­ceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 323- Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
• Section 504- Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.—Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provoca­tion to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
• Section 506- Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

ISSUES

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the alleged averments in the complaint satisfies the ingredients of the offences under sections 419 and 420 of IPC or not?

ANALYSES OF THE JUDGEMENT

• The primary contention of the appellant in the present case is that the averments in the complaint do not constitute the essential ingredients of the offences u/s 419 and 420 and thus it should be quashed. Since reliance was made on Prof. R.K. Vijaysarathi case, the Supreme Court checked upon the ingredients laid down for section 420 IPC in the said case. The court observed that key ingredients for section 420 are-

a. a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and

b. the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to: (i) deliver property to any person; or, (ii) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.

• Therefore, cheating is essential to constitute offence u/s 420 and the same has been described in section 415 of IPC which expressly states that there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver property.
• After looking into the FIR, the court observed it is nowhere alleged that the complainant was induced to get a job and deliver the amount. Therefore, even if all the allegations in the complaint taken at the face value are true, the basic essential ingredients of cheating are missing.
• Thus, the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceedings exercising its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. which it clearly failed to exercise.
• Concerning the offences u/s 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, the High Court was right in not quashing the same. Thus, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and quashed the complaint for offence u/s 419 and 420. The criminal proceedings u/s 323, 504 and 506 are pending before the Judicial Magistrate shall be continued and will be disposed accordingly.

CONCLUSION

• The give and take of bribe in return of favours for personal gains has been a big problem in India for a long time. Not just officials who ask for bribes, the ones who offer it for their personal benefit are equally liable for corruption and cannot claim benefit for their own wrong.
• Further, none of the ingredients were satisfied to constitute the offence under section 419 and 420 of IPC. Thus, the court rightly quashed the complaint alleging offence u/s 419 and 420 of IPC and allowed the criminal proceedings to continue for offences under sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgment