Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
L.H.V. Prasad And Others vs Station House Officer And Others on 10 June, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(3)ALD692, 1999(2)ALD(CRI)15, 1999(3)ALT612, 1999CRILJ3928
Author: Bilal Nazki
Bench: Bilal Nazki
ORDER
1. This is a petition seeking quashing of a complaint in Cr. No.229/96 which has been filed against the petitioners under Section 415, 419 and 420 IPC. The complaint is based on the facts narrated in the complaint. It is submitted that the parents of the complainant gave an advertisement in a news paper seeking marriage alliance for him. Accused No.1 approached him and furnished the particulars of Accused No.4 who was his sister. The accused No.1 claimed that they belong to 'Thoorupu Kapu' community. The complainant belongs to 'Gajula Balija Naidu' community. Both the communities are forward communities and the alliance was accepted by the complainant and his parents. Later on, according to the complainant it was revealed that the girl did not belong to 'Thoorupu Kapu' community but she was from 'Konda Kapu' community which was a Scheduled Tribe. On the basis of these facts the complainant filed a complaint stating therein that he was cheated and he accepted the proposal of marriage on representation that the girl to whom he married belonged to 'Thoorupu Kapu' community. The Police investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The only question before this Court is whether the facts revealed in the complaint even if taken to be true attract an offence under Chapter-XVII of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that, even if the facts stated in the complaint are taken to be true they do not disclose an offence. Chapter-XVII of the IPC deals with offences against the property. So, all the offences which are part of Chapter-XVII of IPC have to be construed with reference to the properly. Cheating is defined in Section 415. For the purpose of appreciating the controversy Section 415 of the IPC is reproduced below:
"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 actor omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"."
Section 415 of the IPC gives a wide definition to the offence of cheating. It is true that an act or omission to do an aet which is likely to cause harm to the person in body, mind, reputation or property is also cheating, but this harm of body, mind, reputation or properly must be coupled with delivery of any property to any person. By delivering a properly to any person on a false inducement if damage is caused to that person in body, mind, reputation of property, there would be an offence of cheating but by a misrepresentation if damage is caused to a person in body, mind, reputation or property without delivery of any property there cannot be an offence of cheating. Section 415 only deals with the definition to the offence of cheating. Section 415 is cheating by personation and Section 417 deals with punishment for cheating. 1 have not been able to find any ingredients of Section 415 in the present complaint. Unless a giri is treated a property there cannot be an offence under Section 415 in the present factual context and it cannot be suggested by anybody that a human being who is given in a marriage is a property within the meaning of Section 415 IPC. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of Bombay High Court in R.B. Maske v. K.S. Shelke, 1975 Crl.LJ 173. The present case is a better case than the one before the Bombay High Court where it had been concealed that the girl was pregnant at the time of marriage but even then the Court found that no offence under Section 415 IPC had been committed. A judgment of Supreme Court in Krishnamurthy v. State of A.P., , has also been cited which is a case in altogether a different context where a person had obtained job by mis-representation of his qualifications. Therefore, that case does not apply to the present controversy. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of Calcutta High Court in Kshitish Chandra v. Emperor, AIR 1937 Calcutta 214. With respects I do not agree with the views expressed in that judgment.
3. For all these reasons, this petilion is allowed and the complaint Cr. No.229/96 is quashed. No costs.