Cheating by false divine powers and further investigation without hearing the accused under criminal procedure

A false representation of possessing divine powers may amount to cheating where it is used to induce another person to part with money or property; on the pleaded facts, the allegations were sufficient to support cognizance under Section 420 IPC. The Magistrate may also direct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC without first hearing the accused, as the provision does not require prior notice to the accused before such an . The article therefore states that a false spiritual claim used to obtain payment can satisfy the ingredients of cheating, and that further investigation may be ordered without an accused hearing at that stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the allegations disclosed the offence of cheating under Sections 415 and 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 hearing the accused.

Issue (i): Whether the allegations disclosed the offence of cheating under Sections 415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: A mere invocation of prayer or religious belief does not by itself amount to fraud. But where a person represents that he possesses divine powers and thereby induces another to part with money or property on that representation, the inducement may constitute cheating. On the facts pleaded, the complainant's allegations were sufficient to support an inference of fraudulent inducement and the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance.

Conclusion: The allegations did disclose an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (ii): Whether the Magistrate could direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without hearing the accused.

Analysis: The power of the police to undertake further investigation after filing a report is recognised, and the court's power to order such investigation is not curtailed by any requirement that the accused must first be heard. Section 173(8) does not impose an obligation on the Magistrate to issue notice to the accused before directing further investigation.

Conclusion: The Magistrate could direct further investigation without hearing the accused.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the criminal proceedings and the order for further investigation failed, and the prosecution was permitted to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: A false representation of possessing divine powers, if used to induce payment, can constitute cheating; and a Magistrate may direct further investigation under Section 173(8) without first hearing the accused.

---