Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pittu Ajay Kiran Reddy vs Devapujala Revathi, on 8 March, 2021
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
1
CMR, J.
Crl.P.No.1156 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Criminal Petition No.1156 of 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by
the petitioner seeking quash of the charge-sheet in P.R.C.No.64 of
2020 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for
Prohibition and Excise, Guntur.
2). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 2 and 3.
3) The first respondent, who is the de facto complainant, lodged
a report with the police stating that the petitioner got acquaintance
with her and he expressed before her that he is in love with her.
Accordingly, both of them loved each other. The petitioner also
promised to marry the de facto complainant and thereby he has
induced her to have sexual intercourse with him. Accordingly, he
had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, he resiled from his
promise to marry her and refused to marry her and cheated her.
4) The said report, which was lodged by the de facto
complainant, was registered as a case in Crime No.730 of 2020 of
Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur Urban, for the offences
punishable under Sections 376, 417, 420 and 506 of IPC. After
completing the investigation and having found that the accusation
made against the petitioner is prima facie well founded and having
collected evidence in proof of commission of the said offences by
the petitioner against the de facto complainant, the Investigating
Officer has eventually filed charge-sheet against the petitioner in
the committal Court. The case is now pending before the
CMR, J.
Crl.P.No.1156 of 2021
committal Court to commit the same for trial to the Court of
Session.
5). The petitioner now seeks quash of the said charge-sheet on
the ground that the facts of the case do not attract any offence
punishable under Section 420 of IPC. It is contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 420 of IPC applies
only for delivery of property and even Section 417 of IPC also
applies only in respect of cheating relating to delivery of property.
Therefore, he would contend that the facts of the case do not
attract any offence punishable under Section 415 of IPC.
6). The said contention absolutely lacks merit. A reading of
Section 415 IPC which defines the offence of cheating makes it
clear that there are many disjunctives used in the Section and the
Section is in two parts. The first part relates to cheating in relation
to property and the second part relates to cheating in respect of
body, mind or reputation of a person. Therefore, even in a case
where accused intentionally induces the person so deceived to do
or omit to do anything which he or she would not do or omit if he
or she were not so deceived, and which may ultimately likely to
cause any damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Therefore, the offence
under Section 415 of IPC is not confined only to damage to any
property itself. Even when it causes any damage or harm to a
person in body, mind or reputation also, the Section attracts.
Since, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner cheated
the de facto complainant with a false promise to marry her and
thereby induced her to have sexual intercourse with her and
thereafter refused to marry her after satisfying his carnal lust in a
CMR, J.
Crl.P.No.1156 of 2021
deceitful manner, certainly it falls within the second limb of the
section which amounts to causing damage or harm to the body,
mind and reputation of a person. So, it cannot be said that the
facts of the case do not attract any offence punishable under
Section 417 of IPC.
7). In fact the legal position in this regard is not res integra and
the same has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of G.V.
Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad1. The same question, whether Sections 415
and 420 IPC apply only to the offence relating to the property or
not or whether it applies to offence relating to causing damage or
harm to body, mind or reputation of a person, came up for
consideration before the Supreme Court. Considering the fact that
Section 415 IPC, which defines the offence of cheating, contains
two parts and while the first part of the definition relates to
property, the second part need not necessarily relate to property,
the Apex Court at para.6 of the said judgment held as follows:
"This part speaks of intentional deception which must be
intended not only to induce the person deceived to do or omit to do
something but also to cause damage or harm to that person in
body, mind, reputation or property. The intentional deception
presupposes the existence of a dominant motive of the person
making the inducement. Such inducement should have led the
person deceived or induced to do or omit to do anything which he
would not have done or omitted to do if he were not deceived. The
further requirement is that such act or omission should have
caused damage or harm to body, mind, reputation or property."
8. Therefore, in view of the settled law in this regard, the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
offences under Sections 415 and 420 IPC apply only to deception
(2000) 3 SCC 693
CMR, J.
Crl.P.No.1156 of 2021
made in relation to property holds no water and it merits no
consideration.
9). Therefore, this Court do not see any valid legal ground
emanating from the record warranting its interference in exercise of
its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-
sheet in P.R.C.No.64 of 2020, which is pending on the file of the
committal Court. Therefore, the Criminal Petition absolutely lacks
merit and it is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any,
shall also stand closed.
________________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date:08.03.2021.
cs
