Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case for cheating as defined u/s 415 IPC or that of forgery as contemplated u/s 467 and 468 is made out. It is submitted that the allegations if taken on their face value disclose an offence punishable u/s 170 and 171 of IPC but not of forgery and cheating. It is, thus, submitted that the order of framing of charges to the extent of challenge as made above deserves to be set aside.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR.790.2017 Himanchal Sharma Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

It is, therefore, evident that a misrepresentation from the very beginning is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence of cheating, although in some cases, an intention to cheat may develop at a later stage of formation of the contract."

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR.790.2017 Himanchal Sharma Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh 5.3(d) When the factual matrix attending the present case is tested on the anvil of the law laid down by the Apex Court and discussion enumerated above, it is seen that the petitioner was found to be impersonating as an Assistant Commandant of Home Guards by wearing uniform and sitting in a vehicle with a blue coloured beacon on top and having certain forged documents to give an impression to the public at large that he was a person wielding public authority. The act of impersonation on the part of petitioner is not disputed but the fact remains that this impersonation did not deceive or induce any person to be deprived of his property or valuables or to omit to be deprived of anything which he cannot do so if not deceived. There is no allegation in the FIR or in any other evidence/material collected by the prosecution that the petitioner had indulged in impersonation to cheat anyone. The petitioner seems to be a victim of jealousy nursed against his friends who were members of the disciplined forces. There does not appear to be criminal intent behind impersonation and neither any such loss is effected to any property from the said act of the petitioner. As such, the offence of cheating as defined u/s 415 IPC and punishable u/s 420 IPC is not made out. 5.4 The next major offence alleged is of forgery THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR.790.2017 Himanchal Sharma Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh which is defined u/s 463 of IPC and punishable u/s 465 of IPC.

5.4(a) For ready reference and convenience, the sections relating to forgery i.e. Section 463, 464 and 465 of IPC are reproduced below:

Sec. 463. Forgery.-- Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

6. From the above discussion, this Court is compelled to hold that the basic ingredients of the offence of cheating as defined in Section 415 and also of forgery as defined under Section 463 of IPC are not made out in the present case.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR.790.2017 Himanchal Sharma Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh 6.1 In view of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to exercise its revisional powers in favour of the petitioner and does so by quashing the charges framed against the petitioner vide order dated 11.07.2017 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) in ST No.117/2017 to the extent of Sections 465, 467, 468 & 420 IPC. 6.2 Consequently, the petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.