Telangana High Court

Suhas Kiran Bhaskar Singapogu 3 ... vs State Of Ts., Rep. By P.P. Another on 27 October, 2022

Bench: D.Nagarjun

       THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.4161 of 2017

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to

4 to quash C.C.No.724 of 2016 on the file of learned XIII

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, the

cognizance of which was taken for the offences under Sections

498-A, 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The facts in brief as can be seen from record available

before the Court are as under:

a) The de-facto complainant - respondent No.2 has lodged a

private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure before the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate at Hyderabad alleging that her marriage was

solemnized with petitioner No.1-accused No.1 on 20.02.2012 at

Centenary Baptist Church at Secunderabad and her father has

spent the expenditure incurred for wedding and reception. On

the demand of the accused, the parents of de-facto complainant

have given 20 thulas of gold ornaments to the accused as dowry

at the time of marriage. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 are the parents

and accused No.3 is the sister of accused No.1. On 20.03.2012

the de-facto complainant has joined her matrimonial house,

wherein she was restricted to have access to internet,

newspaper, cell phone and she was not permitted to speak to

her parents but at times she was permitted to speak to her

parents from the mobiles of accused, that too in the presence of

accused with speaker phone on. Accused No.2 has taken

custody of wedding rings. On the demand of accused Nos.2 and

3 to get gifts from her parents, the de-facto complainant has

complied their demand but accused Nos.2 and 3 were not

satisfied and thereby started harassing her. The de-facto

complainant was entrusted with household work in the

midnight and she had only 3 to 4 hours of sleeping per day.

Accused No.2 directed the de-facto complainant to seek her

permission even to attend nature call. On the instigation of

accused Nos.2 and 3, accused No.1 also started harassing the

de-facto complainant physically, mentally and economically.

Accused No.3 took the mango gold chain of the de-facto

complainant in front of accused No.1, who remained silent.

b) The brother- in - law Ravi Kiran Singapogu and co-sister

Rachel Phelps Singapogu (foreigner) of the de-facto complainant

have stayed in their house till 05.03.2012 and during the said

period accused Nos.1 to 4 groomed and tutored the de-facto

complainant how to raise and maintain funds from foreign

organizations. In the meanwhile, the de-facto complainant

came to know about the fraud and misappropriation done by

accused Nos.1 to 4 under the name of their organization Hope

Outreach Ministries. The de-facto complainant has noticed the

fabrication of financial receipts and unfair method of diverting

funds to their personnel properties and lavishes. Accused Nos.1

to 4 deceive the foreign organizations by providing them with

false information of funding orphanages (which do not exist0

and helping poor.

c) While accused No.1 and de-facto complainant were

supposed to fly on 15.03.2012 to USA, Accused Nos.2 and 3

have checked the baggage of the de-facto complainant on the

pretext that accused No.3 has lost her belonging and made

accusation against the de-facto complainant. Accused Nos.2

and 3 in the course of searching the baggage of the de-facto

complainant have removed the gold articles presented at the

time of marriage, food items prepared and given by the mother

of the de-facto complainant and especially accused No.3 has

retained the marriage saree of the de-facto complainant and

some of her important study certificates. Accused No.2 started

imposing conditions from 10.03.2012 onwards that the de-facto

complainant shall not take a job at USA, her passport has to be

surrendered soon after landing in USA, she shall not hold any

money in her hand, her wearing apparel should be formal and

there shall be no communication from her to her family

members, friends and relatives.

d) Accused No.1 has purchased the tickets for himself and

de-facto complainant to go to USA but accused No.2 has

collected the money spent for ticket from the father of the

de-facto complainant, after the accused No.1 and de-facto

complainant left to USA. The ideology of accused No.2 is to hold

spiritual/holy bible and adopt all sorts of dubious

methodologies only to lure innocent people and styling

themselves to be pastors. Accused No.4 being a pastor used to

dictate terms and directs the de-facto complainant to do all

menial works and if not heeded to his version, he used to scold

the de-facto complainant in filthy language. Accused No.2

insisted the de-facto complainant to explain and describe the

day to day sexual life of the de-facto complainant and accused

No.1 and when the same was questioned, the de-facto

complainant was forced to go back to India by withholding

important documents like I 20 and I 94 with accused No.1, pre

planning with an apprehension that she may come back to USA.

e) After couple of days, the cousin of de-facto complainant

buy name Sunil Roberts and her natural brother went to

accused No.1, who was rude and asked them to walk back.

When Accused No.1 alone used to go to church, pastor has

questioned accused No.1 about the de-facto complainant and on

that accused No.1 replied that de-facto complainant is

absconding and her whereabouts are not known to him. The

de-facto complainant was in constant touch with accused No.1

through e-mail, wherein accused No.1 suggested to her to seek

help from her mother rather than showing an interest to

reconcile with him. On 08.05.2012 the de-facto complainant

has sent an e-mail ventilating all her desire to resolve the

issues. On 10.05.2012 accused No.1 has sent mail seeking

time to give reply. On 20.05.2012 accused No.1 sent mail

attributing fault on the part of the de-facto complainant, as if

she has left his society. Though Mr. Joshua Benjamin and Smt.

Radha Mathews tried to resolve the issues between accused and

de-facto complainant, the accused bluntly refused to accept the

de-facto complainant for continuation of marital life. Mr.Bishop

John Golapalli and Rev Jonathan Kalwala who happens to be

friends of accused, have advised for mutual consent divorce a

day before counseling at Woman Police Station, CCS,

Hyderabad. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 have finally proposed the

de-facto complainant to give a sum of Rs.20 lakhs fro continuing

marital life for which the de-facto complainant and her parents

agreed to give the same after six months on a condition that the

de-facto complainant shall be taken to USA on a dependent visa.

But accused No.1 refused to join the de-facto complainant.

Accused Nos.2 to 4 have used most filthy language against the

de-facto complainant and her parents for calling them to the

police station for counseling. Accused No.1 stated that he won't

give divorce to the de-facto complainant and also does not allow

her to live with him.

3. Learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at

Hyderabad has forwarded the said complaint under Section 156

(3) of the Code of Criminal procedure to the Woman Police

Station, CCS, DD, Hyderabad. On the strength of the

complaint, a case in Crime No.92 of 2016 was registered for the

offence under Sections 498-A, 406, 420 of the Indian Penal

Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After

completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed, the cognizance

of which was taken as C.C.No. 724 of 2016 on the file of learned

XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 4

have filed the criminal petition to quash C.C.No. 724 of 2016

against them on the following grounds:

i) The marriage of de-facto complainant and accused No.1

took place on 20.02.2012, joined the matrimonial house on

20.03.2012 and left for USA along with accused No.1 on

15.03.2012. Evidently she did not stay in the house of the in-

laws at all.

ii) Admittedly, the de-facto complainant did not come back to

the house of accused, after her return from USA in April, 2012.

It took four years for the de-facto complainant to file complaint

with the Police. At any point of time between 2012.2016, except

on the date on which the Police have tried to counsel the

parties, there was no demand for any dowry from the side of the

accused, even as per the complaint.

iii) Accused No.3, who resides in USA for the past 10 years,

has attended the marriage of accused No.1 with the de-facto

complainant in the year 2012 and went back to USA and

thereby she is no way in contact with de-facto complainant

either through telephone or emails.

iv) Admittedly, accused No.2 addressed an email to the

de-facto complainant on 05.06.2012 and it was replied by the

de-facto complainant on 20.06.2012. The contents of those two

letters would go to prove the allegations made by the de-facto

complainant against the accused as false, concocted and

unbelievable. Even the contents of other mails transported

between the de-facto complainant and pastor of Fairfax Baptist

Temple, on which the de-facto complainant is relying, do not

make out any case in favour of the de-facto complainant and

nothing can be culled out from those letters against the

petitioners.

v) Accused No.4 is a pastor and leading life on religious path

but the de-facto complainant is trying to malign him by making

false allegations against him by stating that he is manipulating

the funds sent by foreign missionaries under the guise of

running orphanage.

vi) The provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act are not attract as

stray allegation has been made by the de-facto complainant that

accused have demanded for Rs.20 lakhs in the year 2016

during the course of counseling by the Police. But there was no

such allegation for the entire period between 2012.2016.

vii) When first petitioner stayed in India to have talks with

de-facto complainant, she went to USA without informing the

first petitioner, her in-laws or the elders of the church, who

were trying to initiate talks in April, 2013. The de-facto

complainant has changed her visa status without informing the

petitioners.

viii) The de-facto complainant has been living in USA since

four years there is no communication either from the de-facto

complainant or from her parents.

4. Heard Sri Vedual Srinivas, learned senior counsel for the

petitioners, Sri D.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the

respondent No. 2 - de-facto complainant as well as Sri

S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

5. Now the point for determination is:

"Whether proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.724 of 2016 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

6. The petitioners are charged for the offences under

Sections 498-A, 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections

3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

7. In order to fasten the criminal liability against the

petitioners, the prosecution is expected to show that there is

prima-facie case against the petitioners that they have

committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code.

8. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. M.Madhusudhan Rao1,

the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:

"16. In order to appreciate the rival stands, it would be useful to notice the statutory provisions. Section 498-A I.P.C. makes "cruelty" by husband or his relative a punishable offence. The word "cruelty" is defined in the Explanation appended to the said Section. Section 498-A I.P.C. with Explanation reads thus:

"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be [1962] Supp 1 SCR

(2008) 15 Supreme Court Cases 582

104 (2004) 13 SCC 174 (2004) 10 SCC 570 (2004) 10 SCC 583 (2007) 3 SCC 755 punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--

(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand."

17. Thus, providing a new dimension to the concept of "cruelty", clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A I.P.C. postulates that any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide would constitute "cruelty". Such wilful conduct, which is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman would also amount to "cruelty". Clause (b) of the Explanation provides that harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing

her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand, would also constitute "cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C.

18. It is plain that as per clause (b) of the Explanation, which, according to learned counsel for the State, is attracted in the instant case, every harassment does not amount to "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 498-A I.P.C. The definition stipulates that the harassment has to be with a definite object of coercing the woman or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand. In other words, for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. harassment simpliciter is not "cruelty" and it is only when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property etc., that it amounts to "cruelty" punishable under Section 498- A I.P.C."

9. In Satish Shetty v. State of Karnataka2, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held as follows:

"16. On a plain reading of Section 498-A it transpires that if a married woman is subjected to cruelty by the husband or his relative, the offender

(2008) 15 Supreme Court Cases 582

is liable to be punished with the sentence indicated in the Section. But cruelty can be of different types and therefore what kind of cruelty would constitute offence has been defined under the explanation. As per first definition contained in clause (a) - it means a willful conduct of such a nature which is likely to drive the victim woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injuries to health and life, limb or health (mental or physical). The other definition of cruelty is in clause (b) and is attracted when a woman is harassed with a view to coercing her or any of her relation to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure to meet such demand."

10. Considering the rationale of the above authorities, it is

clear that in order to fasten the criminal liability under Section

498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is expected to

place prima-facie material before the Court that accused No.1

and his relatives i.e., accused Nos. 2 to 4 have subjected the de-

facto complainant with cruelty. Explanation under Section 498-

A of the Indian Penal Code would go to show that the willful

conduct of the accused, which causes injury, either to the

physical or mental condition of the de-facto complainant falls

within the definition of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

11. The de-facto complainant has narrated many incidents of

harassment meted out on her in the hands of all accused.

Accused No.2 is none other than the mother of accused No.1.

In fact the de-facto complainant has made more allegations

against accused No.2 than accused No.1. It is alleged that

Accused No.2 has taken custody of wedding rings, she was not

permitting the de-facto complainant to go to her bed and was

entrusted with household work until midnight and thereby the

de-facto complainant hardly used to get 3 or 4 hours of sleep

per day, she was not even permitted to attend nature call

without permission of accused No.2. Accused No.2 has imposed

conditions on de-facto complainant from 10.03.2012 onwards

stating that the de-facto complainant shall not take a job at

USA, her passport has to be surrendered soon after landing in

USA, she shall not hold any money in her hand, her wearing

apparel should be formal and there shall be no communication

from her to her family members, friends and relatives. Accused

No.2 has gone to the extent of insisting the de-facto complainant

to explain and describe the day to day sexual life of the de-facto

complainant and accused No.1.

12. In the case on hand, the de-facto complainant in her

complaint has clearly narrated with regard to the harassment

meted out by her in the hands of accused No.1 in India and also

at USA. When accused No.1 and de-facto complainant went to

USA, both of them stayed together for a period of one month

and even in that one month period also she has narrated

number of incidents, where accused No.1 has subjected her to

cruelty.

13. The de-facto complainant, who was in touch with accused

No.1 through e-mails tried to resolve the issues but accused

No.1 always refused for the same by stating that unless she

comes through his mother i.e., accused No.2, the issues cannot

be resolved.

14. The contents of complaint, the statements of witnesses

would reveal that the de-facto complainant was harassed by

accused Nos.1 to 4, the de-facto complainant was restricted in

accessing the internet, newspapers, mobile phone and that she

was permitted to speak to her parents from the mobile phone of

accused No.1, that too in the presence of accused by putting the

speaker phone on. On the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3,

accused No.1 started harassing the de-facto complainant

physically, mentally and economically. Accused Nos.2 and 3

used to put new demands on the de-facto complainant through

accused No.1. On the advice of accused Nos.2 and 3, accused

No.1 used to harass de-facto complainant even at USA and

booked a ticket for de-facto complainant to India and abruptly

asked her to go to India without assigning any reason. After she

came back to India also, the de-facto complainant tried to be in

touch with accused No.1 through emails and she tried to

reconcile with accused No.1 but he wanted that she has to

reach him only through his mother i.e., accused No.2. When an

attempt was made by persons from the church, still accused

No.1 was not in a mood to accept the proposal.

15. As per the charge sheet, the Accused No.3 sister of

accused No.1 was instrumental in harassing the de-facto

complainant for not heeding to her version. Accused No.3 took

the mango gold chain and retained the marriage saree of the de-

facto complainant and so also her important study certificates,

but accused No.1 remained silent.

16. It is alleged that Accused No.4 being a pastor used to

dictate terms and directs the de-facto complainant to do all

menial works and if not heeded to his version, he used to scold

the de-facto complainant in filthy language, which cannot be

described.

17. It is also the case of the prosecution that Accused Nos.2

and 3 have demanded the de-facto complainant to get gifts from

her parents and accordingly gifts were arranged to them, even

though, both of them were not happy. Accused Nos. 2 and 3

have directed the de-facto complainant to shorten her hair and

after engagement, they have shortened her hair against her will.

When accused No.1 and de-facto complainant were supposed to

fly on 15.03.2012 to USA, Accused Nos.2 and 3 have checked

the baggage of the de-facto complainant on the pretext that

accused No.3 has lost her belonging and made allegation

against the de-facto complainant. Accused Nos.2 and 3 during

the course of searching the baggage of the de-facto complainant

have removed the gold articles presented at the time of

marriage, food items prepared and given by the mother of the

de-facto complainant.

18. The harassment of accused Nos.1 to 4 intensified day by

day. When de-facto complainant was running temperature with

cold and cough, she was asked to go to her home till she is

recovered. Accused Nos.1 to 4 deceived the foreign

organizations by providing them with false information of

funding orphanages (which do not exist) and helping poor.

19. After reaching India, none of the persons from the family

of accused came to airport and thereby the de-facto complainant

along with her parents went to their house. Subsequently,

emails were exchanged between the de-facto complainant and

accused No.1. Members of the church have made an attempt to

resolve the issues between accused No.1 and de-facto

complainant and also advised accused No.1 for settlement.

20. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 have finally demanded the de-

facto complainant to give a sum of Rs.20 lakhs for continuing

marital life. Accused No.1 stated that he won't give divorce to

the de-facto complainant and also does not allow her to live with

him.

21. On going through the entire narration of the de-facto

complainant in the complaint and also the investigation of the

Police in the form of charge sheet, it is clear that all the accused

have harassed the de-facto complainant. On considering all the

above allegations, it is clear that there is prima - facie case

against the petitioners.

22. As seen from the charge sheet, the Police during the

course of investigation have examined the de-facto complainant,

her parents and one independent witness. The petitioners have

not filed copies of the statement of witnesses i.e., LWs 1 to 4.

The statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure are relevant in order to consider

allegations leveled against the petitioners. In the absence of

such statements before this Court, the gist of the statements in

the form of charge sheet is only the basis to consider that all the

witnesses have spoken against the petitioners as gist of the

charge sheet goes to show that all the four accused have

harassed the de-facto complainant mentally and physically.

23. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted

that even if the contents of allegations leveled against the

petitioners in the charge sheet are stated to be correct, the

de-facto complainant has stayed in India only for few days, prior

to leaving USA thereby there was no possibility of accused Nos.1

to 4 to harass the de-facto complainant. It is true that after

marriage, the de-facto complainant and accused No.1 went to

USA on 15.03.2012 and de-facto complainant has stayed in

India along with accused only for few days. But as seen from the

contents of complaint, charge sheet, the de-facto complainant

has narrated all the incidents and various kinds of harassment

by accused Nos.1 to 4 when she was in India prior to she left to

USA. The truth or otherwise of those allegations will be subject

matter of trial before the trial Court.

24. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the

petitioners that even if the contents of the allegations leveled

against the petitioners are accepted, there is a huge delay in

filing the complaint. Question arises as to why de-facto

complainant could not complaint prior to leaving the country.

The de-facto complainant was specific that even after going to

USA also accused No.1 continued to harass her. It is to be

noted that the de-facto complainant came to India within one

month and even after that she has tried to reconcile with

accused No.1 and she was in touch with accused No.1 through

emails but ultimately as accused No.1 wanted resolution to be

done only through his mother i.e., accused No.2, efforts could

not be materialized. The de-facto complainant also given an

explanation as to why she could not file complaint immediately.

She has stated that prior to leaving to USA, since she being

newly married wife of accused No.1, even though accused

persons were harassing her, she does not want to spoil her

marital life and thereby she did not file complaint. It is true

that most of the allegations leveled against the petitioners by

the de-facto complainant are prior to de-facto complainant

leaving to USA. It is to be noted that in most of the matrimonial

issues, alleged harassment period will not be for a shorter

period. In almost all the cases, the alleged harassment starts

and continues for a longer period until complaint is filed before

the Police. During the said interregnum period for some time,

wife would keeps quiet and will not inform about the alleged

harassment to anybody including the parents and Police with

hope that the husband and relatives would change their

attitude and if harassment continues then the victim will inform

her parents and close relatives and all of them try to reconcile

and patch up the disputes. After exhausting all the remedies

including reconciliation, then the complaint would be filed

before the Police. Therefore, in a case like this, delay in filing

the complaint will not in any way affect the case of the

prosecution. However, the petitioners can certainly canvas all

these aspects before the trial Court at appropriate time.

25. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has relied upon

authority in Chandralekha and others v. State of Rajasthan

and another3, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as

follows:

(2008) 15 Supreme Court Cases 582

"We must, at the outset, state that the High Court's view on jurisdiction meets with our approval and we confirm the view. However, after a careful perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed. The allegations are extremely general in nature. No specific role is attributed to each of the appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the marriage, she resided with her husband at Ahmedabad. It is not clear whether appellants 1, 2 and 3 were residing with them at Ahmedabad. The marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a period of seven months. Thereafter, respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants. Six years after she left the house, the present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is important to remember that appellant 2 is a married sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2 against appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2 has tried to rope them in this case along with her

husband. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of process of law. In the interest of justice, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3."

In the case on hand, the de-facto complainant has not

made reckless, vague and omnibus allegations against the

petitioners. Since she has categorically narrated each and every

overt act committed by each of the petitioners, rationale of

above said citation is not applicable to the facts of the case on

hand.

26. In order to consider an application under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners are expected to

prove that even if all the contents of charge sheet, and

complaint are accepted to be true, there shall not be any case

against the petitioners on the face of the record. All the

defences put forth by the petitioners cannot be considered at

this stage to see whether the case against the petitioners can be

quashed. It is enough for this Court to decline the relief of the

petitioners, in case, if there is prima-facie material against the

petitioners to show that the accused persons have harassed the

de-facto complainant.

27. As already discussed, there is a strong prima-facie

material against the accused to show that there are ingredients

for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code

and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

28. The petitioners were also charged for the offences under

Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It has become

a practice that whenever conflicts arises between the wife and

husband, the family members of the de-facto complainant not

only file complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal

Code but also under the provisions of Sections 406 and 420 of

the Indian Penal Code. In almost all the cases of harassment by

husband and his family members, there cannot be ingredients

for alleging that husband and his family members have

committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406

of the Indian Penal Code.

29. In Vijay Kumar Ghai and others vs. The State of West

Bengal and others4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at

paragraphs 31 to 36 as under:

"31. Section 415 IPC defines "cheating" which reads as under:

(2022) 7 SCC 124

"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"."

The essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are:

1. Deception of any person

2. (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person--

(i) to deliver any property to any person; or

(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or

(b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were no 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.

32. 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.

33. Section 420 IPC defines "cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property" which reads as under:

"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."

34. Section 420 IPC is a serious form of cheating that includes inducement (to lead or move someone to happen) in terms of delivery of property as well as valuable securities. This section is also applicable to matters where the destruction of the property is caused by the way of cheating or inducement. Punishment for cheating is provided under this section which may extend to 7 years and also makes the person liable to fine.

35. To establish the offence of cheating in inducing the delivery of property, the following ingredients need to be proved:

(i) The representation made by the person was false.

(ii) The accused had prior knowledge that the representation he made was false.

(iii) The accused made false representation with dishonest intention in order to deceive the person to whom it was made.

(iv) The act where the accused induced the person to deliver the property or to perform or to abstain from any act which the person would have not done or had otherwise committed.

36. As observed and held by this Court in R.K.

Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam [R.K.

Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC

739 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 454] , the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:

(i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and

(ii) 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. Thus, cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC."

30. The de-facto complainant failed to establish that since

the inception i.e., prior to her marriage with accused No.1, the

accused have dishonest intention to cheat the de-facto

complainant.

31. Similarly in the matrimonial relationship of husband and

wife, there will not be any entrustment of property by wife in

favour of the husband and that the husband has

misappropriated the same. In fact, the relationship of the

husband and wife will survive on the trust between the parties

and not on the entrustment of the properties.

32. In order to attract the offence under Section 406 IPC, the

prosecution is expected to establish the following ingredients:

a) The accused must be entrusted with property or with the dominion power over that property.

b) The person entrusted must dishonestly misappropriate or converted the property for his own use.

c) The person entrusted dishonestly used or dispose of the property or willfully suffer any person to do so.

33. Though the Police have filed charge sheet against the

petitioners for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the

Indian Penal Code, there is no material to show that the acts or

omissions on the part of the petitioners constitute the offences

under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

34. As seen from the record, there are many factual issues

involved in this case, which are to be dealt with by the trial

Court after full-fledged trial but not at this premature stage,

more particularly in a petition filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. In Rajib Ranjan and others v.

R.Vijaykumar5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"19. In Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others, (2007) 12 SCC 1, the Court reiterated the scope and ambit of power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code in the following words:

(2015) 1 Supreme court Cases 513

"23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts' powers under Section 482 CrPC. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised:

(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

24. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the could would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute.

Discussion of decided cases

25. Reference to the following cases would reveal that the courts have consistently taken the view that they must use this extraordinary power to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. The English courts have also used inherent power to achieve the

same objective. It is generally agreed that the Crown Court has inherent power to protect its process from abuse. In Connelly v. DPP, 1 1964 AC 1254 Lord Devlin stated that where particular criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process, the court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial. Lord Salmon in DPP v. Humphrys, 1977 AC 1 stressed the importance of the inherent power when he observed that it is only if the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and is oppressive and vexatious that the judge has the power to intervene. He further mentioned that the court's power to prevent such abuse is of great constitutional importance and should be jealously preserved.

46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal

position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained."

35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a celebrated judgment

decided between State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan

Lal and others6, has formulated certain guidelines under which

Court can consider quashment of criminal case. The guidelines

are:

"(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the

1992 AIR 604

institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

36. In view of the principle laid down in the above referred

authorities, it is clear that though inherent jurisdiction of the

High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure is wide, such power has to be exercised sparingly,

carefully and with caution.

37. As discussed above, since there are no allegations against

the petitioners-accused for the offences under Sections 420 and

406 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet against the

petitioners for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the

Indian Penal Code cannot be proceeded with. However, since

there is prima-facie material against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the

offences under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and