Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings for cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained against the appellant in the absence of any allegation that she induced the complainant to deliver the gold jewellery, and whether the High Court ought to have exercised powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the proceedings.
Analysis: The allegations in the FIR and complaint were directed against the co-accused husband, who was said to have obtained the jewellery by misrepresentation and inducement. There was no allegation that the appellant had herself made any dishonest inducement to the complainant or had played any role in causing delivery of the property. For an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, dishonest inducement to part with property is an essential ingredient. In the absence of such an allegation against the appellant, the prosecution for cheating could not be maintained against her.
Conclusion: The proceedings against the appellant for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were quashed, and the High Court's refusal to quash them was set aside to that extent.
Ratio Decidendi: A person cannot be prosecuted for cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 unless the complaint contains an allegation of dishonest inducement by that person to deliver property.