Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Heard Mr. Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Bipin Lal Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the materials available on record.

2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 16.3.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court No. 1, Varanasi in Case No. 1632 of 2016 (State vs Sunil Kumar Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 302 of 2015, under sections 419 and 420 IPC, PS Cholapur, District Varanasi, whereby the revisionist has been summoned to face trial.

6. It is next submitted that when opposite party No. 2 could not succeed in his plan, then he, on the same facts and allegations, lodged the impugned FIR on 04.09.2015 concealing his earlier complaint dated 01.05.2015 and enquiry report dated 28.08.2015, registered as Case Crime No. 302 of 2015, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC at police station Cholapur, District Varanasi, against the revisionist. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation, submitted charge sheet dated 02.01.2016 against the revisionist, on which the Magistrate concerned took cognizance on 16.03.2016 and revisionist has been summoned to face trial.

7.7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that accepting the contents of the FIR as well as entire materials available on record, basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Sections 419 and 420 IPC are lacking, hence no offence is made out against the revisionist.

7.8. Further submission is that it is well settled that the criminal prosecution for the offence under section 419 and 420 IPC can be launched only by the person, who has been cheated in the matter. Since the opposite party No. 2 has not been cheated by the revisionist in any manner, therefore, basic ingredients for committing alleged offence are clearly lacking in the present case and no offence is made out against the revisionist from all the corners. Criminal proceedings against the revisionist is clear abuse of process of the court based on mala fide intention of opposite party No. 2 in order to settle his personal score. It is submitted that criminal revision in hand is liable to be allowed with heavy cost upon the opposite party No. 2.

Firstly, I shall deal section 419 IPC.

"419. Punishment for cheating by personation.--Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
The ingredients required to constitute offence of cheating are -
1. there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him.
2. (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or