Fraudulent claims of supernatural powers can support cheating, and further investigation may be ordered without hearing the accused first.
A complaint alleging that the accused claimed divine or occult powers to induce payment could disclose prima facie cheating, because such representation may amount to fraudulent inducement when money is obtained on the promise of cure or benefit. The challenge to cognizance therefore failed. The court also stated that a Magistrate may direct further investigation after a final report or even after cognizance, and the Code does not require a prior hearing to the accused before making that order. The refusal to quash the criminal proceedings was sustained.
Issues: (i) Whether the allegations disclosed the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (ii) Whether the Magistrate could direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without first hearing the accused.
Issue (i): Whether the allegations disclosed the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Analysis: A representation that one possesses divine or occult powers, if made to induce another to part with money on the assurance of cure or benefit, can amount to inducement within the meaning of the law of cheating. Where money is obtained on such representation and the promised result does not follow, the materials may support an inference that the accused made a fraudulent representation. At the stage of quashing, the allegations were sufficient to sustain the police case and the Magistrate's cognizance.
Conclusion: The allegations disclosed a prima facie case of cheating and the challenge to cognizance failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the Magistrate could direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without first hearing the accused.
Analysis: The statutory power of further investigation is recognised even after submission of a final report and even after cognizance has been taken. The requirement of giving the accused a prior hearing was not found in the provision, and reading such an obligation into it would unnecessarily burden the process. The direction for further investigation therefore did not suffer from lack of jurisdiction merely because the accused was not heard beforehand.
Conclusion: The Magistrate was competent to order further investigation without issuing a prior notice or hearing to the accused.
Final Conclusion: The order refusing to quash the criminal proceedings was sustained, and the appeal failed in its entirety.
Ratio Decidendi: A complaint alleging fraudulent representation of supernatural powers to induce payment can disclose cheating, and a Magistrate may direct further investigation under Section 173(8) without first hearing the accused.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
