High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:153422 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13206 of 2024 Applicant :- Rahish Pal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Beerendra Pratap Singh,Indra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Beerendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 2. Relationship between the applicants and complainant is not under dispute. Daughter of applicant no.1 is married with the son of O.P. No.2. According to complainant, dispute is in regard is return of a loan amount of Rs.One Lakhs and learned Magistrate has summoned the applicants for an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. Relevant part of impugned order is mentioned hereinafter: "4-ससुनना एववं पतनावलली कना अवललोकन ककयना। पररिवनाकदियना दनारिना अपनने बयनान अन्तररत धनारिना- 200 दिवं०प्र०सवं० मम कथन ककयना रयना हहै कक मनेरिने पसुत रिमनाकनान्त कने सससुरि रिहलीशपनाल व सनालना कशवम कदिननावंक 20.06.2020 मम घरि परि दिलोननों ललोर आयने थने। कशवम नने कहनावं थना कक ममौसली मनेरिली शनादिली जसुलनाई मम हहै, तलो उसकने ललयने मसुझने कसु छ चलीजने व एक लनाख रूपयने दिने दिलो। महैनने बलोलना कक कशवम हम तसुम्हनारिना कवश्वनास नहहीं करिमरने अपनने कपतनाजली सने बनात करिनाओ। वने ललोर शनाम कलो रूकने थने। हमनारिने समधली नने कहना कक मनेरिना कवश्वनास करिलो। अरलने कदिन ससुबह मनेरिने पकत नने महैनने एक लनाख रूपयने , सलोनने ककी जवंजलीरि अवंरगूठली ससुरिनेशचन्द, कमलनेश कने सनामनने दिने कदियने। लरभर 11 बजने हनोंरने। शनादिली कदिननावंक 20.07.2020 कलो हहई थली। 6 महलीनने बनादि ममनने पहैसने मनावंरने परि नहहीं ससुनली। उसकने बनादि ममनने पवंचनायत जलोडली, तलो पवंचनायत मम उन ललोरनों नने सनाफ इवंकनारि करि कदियना कक हम सनामनान औरि रूपयना वनाकपस नहहीं करि पनायमरने कफरि कशकनायत करिनने हम ररिजलोरि थनानने रयने परि कलोई ससुनवनायली नहहीं हहई। एस०एस०पली० सनाहब कलो प्रनाथरननापत कदियना परि कसु छ नहहीं हहआ , तलो मम न्यनायनालय आयली हह हूँ। अन्य कलोई मसुकदिमने नहहीं चल रिहना। एक सनाल सने बहह अपनने मनायकने रिह रिहली हहै। उपरिलोक्त घटनना कना समथरन पली०डब्लगू 1 कमलनेश एववं पली०डब्लगू०-2 ससुरिनेशचन्दि, पली०डब्लगू०-3 रलीतम लसवंह नने भली अपनने बयनाननों मम ककयना हहै। पतनावलली परि उपलब्ध बयनाननों व सनाक्ष्यनों कलो दृकष्टिरत रिखतने हहए कवपकलीरण रिहलीशपनाल, कशवम कने कवरूद्ध प्रथम दृष्टियना मनामलना प्रतलीत हलोतना हहै। अततः कवपकलीरण रिहलीशपनाल कशवम आकदि क कवरुद्ध अन्तररत धनारिना 420 भना०दिवं०सवं० कने अकभयलोर कने तहत कनायरवनाहली ककयना जनानना न्यनायलोकचत प्रतलीत हलोतना हहै। तदिनसुसनारि अकभयसुक्तरण तलब ककयने जनानने यलोग्य हहै। आदिनेश 5- अकभयसुक्तरिण रिहलीशपनाल, कशवम आकदि कने कवरूद्ध धनारिना -420 भना०दिवं०सवं० कने अवंतररत सजनान लनेतने हहए जररियने सम्मन तलब ककयना जनातना हहै पररिवनादिली कलो आदिनेकशत ककयना जनातना हहै कक वह धनारिना अनसुपनालन मम सनाक्ष्य ककी सगूचली दिनालखल करिने तथना धनारिना -204(2) सली०आरि०पली०सली० कने -204(3) सली०आरि०पली०सली० कने अनसुपनालन मम सम्मन कने सनाथ पररिवनादिपत ककी प्रकतललकप प्रस्तसुत करिने। उपरिलोक्त कने अनसुपनालन कने उपरिनावंत कनायनारलय दनारिना अकभयसुक्त ककी उपसस्थकत हनेतसु सम्मन जनारिली हलो। पतनावलली कदिननाक 20.12. 2023 वनास्तने हनालजरिली हनेतसु पनेश हलो। "
Legal Reasoning
5. This Court in an APPLICATION U/S 482 No.-194 of 2024, Anuj Gupta And Others Vs. State Of UP Others Neutral Citation No.-2024:AHC:110869 has followed the judgement passed by Supreme Court in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam on this issue. For reference, relevant part of said order is reproduced hereinafter: " 11. This Court, in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam has culled out the ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 415 and 420 of IPC, as under: "15. Section 415 of the Penal Code reads thus: "415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"." 16. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows: 16.1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him: 16.1.1. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or 16.1.2. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and 16.2. In cases covered by 16.1.2. above, the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. 17. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating. 18. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus: "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." 19. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows: 19.1. A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and 19.2. The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. 20. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420." 6. In aforesaid circumstances, there is a merit in the argument of learned counsel for the applicants that on basis of averments made in the complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. no offence can be made out under Section 420 I.P.C. since ingredients of Section 415 I.P.C. that complainant has induced to pay as well as there was dishonest intention not to return it since inception are not present. 7. Court is of considered opinion that no reason has been assigned by the learned Magistrate to summon the applicants under Section 420 I.P.C.(See Lalankumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383). 8. In aforesaid circumstances a case for interference is made out to invoke the inherent jurisdiction, therefore, impugned order dated 22.11.2023 in Complaint Case No.13693 of 2022 (Smt. Rama Devi Vs. Rahish Pal & Ors) under Section 420 of I.P.C. Police Station-Rijor, District-Etah pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Etah is set-aside and matter is remanded to learned Trial Court to pass a fresh order within a period of four months from today. 9. With aforesaid observation/direction, this application is disposed of. 10. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. Order Date :- 20.9.2024 SB
Arguments
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that ingredients of Section 415 I.P.C. are not made out as well as he refers contents of paragraphs nos.14,17 and 18 of the affidavit, which is mentioned hereinafter: "14. That the opposite party no. 2 and her family members torture to the daughter of applicant for additional demand of dowry and left to her to her parental house on 08.06.2022. Since then the deponent is residing with her parents in her parental house and filed the Complaint Case No. 9295 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 342, 323, 504 of I.P.C. and Section ¾ of D.P. Act on 29.07.2022 and application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 25.08.2022. 17. That the allegation made in the complaint for committing the offence under Section 406 of I.P.C., but learned Magistrate not found the offence under Section 406 of I.P.C. and wrongly summon under Section 420 of I.P.C. There is no any ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicants. 18. That no offence of Section 420 of I.P.C. made out against the applicants and the present complaint has been filed with malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. The learned Magistrate without considering the entire material on record has illegally summoned the applicants to face the trial for offence under Section 420 of I.P.C." 4. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 has supported the impugned order however, failed to convince the court as to how ingredients of Section 415 of I.P.C. are made out and whether requisite reasons are assigned in the impugned order.