The Supreme Court While dealing with an Appeal against the Order of dismissal of a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashment of FIR and subsequent proceedings in connection with an Offence registered under Section 420 IPC has held that for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses:
(i) the deception of any person;
(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and
(iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement.
A case under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC was registered against few accused including the Appellant. It was submitted by the Appellant that, for attracting the offence of ‘cheating’ as defined under Section 415 of IPC and punishable under Section 420 of IPC, it is necessary that the FIR should make out a case of “intentional inducement”, “dishonesty” or “fraudulence”. And that for the offence of ‘cheating’, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should also have dishonestly induced the person deceived to deliver any property to a person.
The court relied upon the law related to Quashment of complaints and criminal proceedings as laid down by the Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 : 2006 INSC 452 and also G. Sagar Suri and Another v. State of U.P. and Others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 INSC 34. The court further relied upon Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and Another v. Sudha Seetharam and Another reported in (2019) 16 SCC 739 : 2019 INSC 216 which culled the ingredients to constitute an Offence under Section 415 & 420 of IPC.
The court held that for attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.
The court while answering another issue involved in the case as to whether a petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable once the Charge sheet is filed has held that there is nothing in the Words of Section 482 CrPC which restricts the exercise of power of the court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the State of FIR. The court further observed that it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.
