Nachhatar Singh v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 23 Jul 2010
- Bench
- DHARAM VEER
Outcome
Allowed
For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 200, 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 415, 420
Judgment
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner in the complainant or in the statement which may constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC. I find force in the argument of learned Counsel inasmuch as the complainant himself has nowhere alleged that he ever met the petitioner or personally gave any money to him. No conversation whatsoever had taken place between the petitioner and the complainant. It was Ravindra Pal Singh and Davindra Pal Singh who had assured him to give employment in foreign country and the complainant gave all the money either to Ravindra Pal Singh or Davindra Pal Singh. It was Ravindra Pal Singh who had given him the cheque of rupees one lakh and had assured for full refund of money in case of failure to provide the promised job to the complainant. Petitioner never assured him for any job. The complainant had only expressed his doubt that the person who had come along with Ravindra Pal Singh at the airport at Delhi in the night of 3/4.9.2003, might be Nachhatar Singh and this fact further goes to reveal that the complainant had never actually met the petitioner.
There is no evidence against the petitioner to prove the offence of cheating against him. A ‘cheat’ has been defined under Section 415 IPC which is reproduced as under: “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”. 4 Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.” From a bare reading of the definition of a cheat quoted above as well as on perusal of the complaint, statement recorded under Section 200 CrPC and other evidence available on the record, it is apparent that the ingredients of cheating are not attracted against the petitioner.
Operative part
Even if the allegations made in the complaint, statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and other evidence available on record are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. Therefore, the summoning order dated 22.5.2004 is not justified and correct in respect of the petitioner and is liable to be set aside. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 22.5.2004 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge 1st (Jr. Div.)/JM, Dehradun in Complaint Case no. 1331 of 2004, Manish Kumar v. Ravindra Pal Singh & Ors. thereby summoning the petitioner under Section 420 IPC is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner only. Interim order dated 17.2.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.)
23.7.2010 PRABODH
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 200, 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 415, 420.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 23 Jul 2010. The bench was DHARAM VEER.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.