Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. Now before examining other aspects, we first propose to examine the provisions under which FIR has been lodged, to find out what are the ingredients which we have to analyze in the FIR in question, whether they are satisfied or not. The FIR has been lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B I.P.C.

29. Section 420 is "cheating" which is defined in Section 415. Therefore, let us examine both these provisions which read 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".

42. In Vir Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal and another, 2007(7) SCC 373 it was held that if no act of inducement on the part of accused is alleged and no allegation is made in the complaint that there was any intention to cheat from the very inception, the requirement of Section 415 read with Section 420 IPC would not be satisfied. The Court relied on the earlier decisions in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma (supra) and Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd.(supra).

43. In support of the contention that no offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is made out, Sri Chaturvedi placed reliance on decisions of Apex Court in Mohammad Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another (2009) 8 SCC 751 and Parminder Kaur Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2010) 1 SCC 322. He contended that Society being owner of University has rightly included assets, funds and liabilities of University in its own consolidated accounts and balance-sheet. There is no cheating or fraud or forgery.

46. Then the Court further considered Section 420 and observed that in order to attract Section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived either to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof or to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security. The Court said that in a given case, when a ownership is wrongly claimed, it may be a case where a purchaser may raise a complaint of fraud, but such a complain cannot be made by third party, who is not purchaser. In the facts of the case, the Court found that no offence under Sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 I.P.C. was made out. Having said so, the Court has also given a clarification as under:

90. Be that as it may, since in our view the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, taken on its face value, do not satisfy offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, continuance of proceedings in furtherance thereof is an apparent misuse of the process of Court and the same cannot be allowed.

91. The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned FIR dated 09.09.2014 being Case Crime No. 862 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station Hariparvat, Agra and all subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto, are hereby quashed.