Allahabad High Court
Rohit Rao vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 December, 2022
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26357 of 2022 Applicant :- Rohit Rao Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Applicant before this Court is challenging charge sheet dated 23.07.2013, cognizance order dated 28.09.2020 and non-bailable warrant dated 24.06.2022 in Case No. 522 of 2020 (State vs. Raj Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 478 of 2013, under Sections 419, 420, 511 IPC, Police Station Machhali Shahar, District Jaunpur.
2. Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, submits that considering entire material collected during investigation including statement of complaint, no case is made out under Sections 419, 420, 511 IPC as it was not fall under the attempt to commit an offence referred under above Sections. It is contended that alleged packet of rupees was not even handed over by applicant to complainant. It was a conversation between applicant and other co-accused. He also read out certain portion of FIR, statements and recovery memo.
3. Above submissions are opposed by learned AGA appearing for State.
4. In order to consider the rival submissions, I have carefully perused the material on record.
5. In FIR the complainant has specifically stated that co-accused, Raj Kumar has approached him for the purpose to deposit some money in Bank. Later on his friend, i.e., applicant has also joined and when they were in conversation, alarm was raised and they were arrested. Further allegation is that both were trying to commit cheating to take out the money which complainant was carrying. During investigation same version was stated as well as in recovery memo also same version has been reiterated.
6. Submission of learned counsel for applicant that since no money was handed over, therefore, offence under Sections 419, 420 IPC is not made out, has sans merit. Offence of cheating is defined under Section 415 Cr.P.C., which is reproduced as under:
?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?.
7. Therefore, any attempt to deceive any person fraudulently or dishonestly whereby induced the person so deceived to deliver any property will definitely fall for the purpose of attempt to commit cheating. There is no need that person so deceived must deliver or take something. The attempt is completed once there was something towards to deceive the person or to handover any property, which is prima facie evident from the contents as referred above.
8. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned charge sheet, cognizance and summoning order.
9. Application is accordingly dismissed.
10. The non-bailable warrant issued against applicant, if not executed till date, shall be executed forthwith.
11. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Court concerned immediately.
Order Date :- 6.12.2022 AK-(Sl. No. 2 out of 329 fresh cases)