Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned senior advocate, and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned advocate, were appointed as amicus curiae. We have heard the learned P.P. and the learned Counsel in each case.

5. In this batch of cases, we are deciding the question of law referred to us and as such, the facts of individual cases are not considered or referred to.

6. Before proceeding further, we may briefly note the various decisions of this court on the subject.

7. In the case of Joleswar Kalita v. State of Assam (1988) 1 GLR 128, the question raised was that the prosecutrix could not have surrendered to the petitioner, if she was not deceived and as the prosecutrix had suffered damage or harm in body, mind and reputation due to deception, the offence of cheating under Section 415, IPC is made out hon'ble Sangma, J, declined to accept, the above submission and held that the petitioner could not be convicted for cheating under the penal law and it was held as follows:

417. Punishment for cheating. - Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.

19. In the case of Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singla reportd in , the essential ingredients to attract Section 415, IPC were enumerated as below -

Section 415 defines "cheating". The said provision requires: (i) deception of any person, (ii) whereby fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (iii) intentionally inducing that person 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. Deception of any person is common to the second and third requirements of the provision. The said requirements are alternative to each other and this is made significantly clear by use of disjunctive conjunction "or", The definition of the offence of cheating embraces some cases in which no transfer of property is occasioned by the deception and some in which such a transfer occurs. Deception is the quintessence of the offence. The essential ingredients to attract Section 420 are : (i) cheating; (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver is property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable property; and (ii) the mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement. The making of a false representation is one of the ingredients for the offence of cheating under Section 420. (See Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai v. State of Bombay).

As was observed by this court in Shivanarayan Kabra v. State of Madras it is not necessary that a false pretence should be made in express words by the accused. It may be inferred from all the circumstances including the conduct of the accused in obtaining the property. In the true nature of things, it is not always possible to prove dishonest intention by any direct evidence. It can be proved by a number of circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn.

20. In Joleswar Kalita (supra), the learned Single Judge held that as the offence of cheating is included in Chapter under property, the cheating must be in respect of property only, does not appear to us to be a correct interpretation of law, Chapter 16 of the Penal Code is larger chapter in the IPC and all sorts of offence regarding property are included in this chapter and infringement of such property right were protected. From the period of enactment of the Indian Penal Code, chastity of woman was regarded as her greatest virtue and asset. Those were the days of chastity and even the monarchs in England were reluctant to marry a woman without chastity. Chastity may not have money value. In the hands of the person cheated, but it definitely has its reputation value. Moreover, under the definition of cheating under Section 415, IPC, any act or omission, which may arise or likely to cause damage or harm to the person so deceived, has also been included. The expression 'harm' has not been defined in the IPC. In the case of Mrs. Veeda Menezes v. Yusuf Khan , the Apex Court observed as follows:

22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the decision in Joleswar Kalita (supra) is not a good law. The case of Moni Gogoi (supra) was decided mainly on facts. However, we concur with the decision of learned Single Judge in Moran Chandra Paul and hold that where the prosecution can establish the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 415, IPC, and where the accused dishonestly induces the woman to have sexual intercourse with him on the basis of false promise to marry her, case of simple cheating under Section 417, IPC can be hold to have been made out.