{"id":1451,"date":"2024-02-08T13:15:48","date_gmt":"2024-02-08T07:45:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1451"},"modified":"2024-02-08T13:15:48","modified_gmt":"2024-02-08T07:45:48","slug":"supreme-court-holds-that-mere-cheating-will-not-attract-offence-under-section-420-ipc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-holds-that-mere-cheating-will-not-attract-offence-under-section-420-ipc\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court holds that mere cheating will not attract offence under section 420 IPC"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1><strong>Mariam Fasihuddin &amp; Anr.\u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong>Appellant(s)]\u00a0 <strong>Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong><strong>State by Adugodi Police Station &amp; Anr. [<\/strong>Respondent(s)]<\/h1>\n<p>Criminal Appeal No.335\/ 2024<\/p>\n<p>(2JB, SURYA KANT and DIPANKAR DATTA JJ., delivered by <strong>SURYA KANT, J.<\/strong>)<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The Appellants assail the judgment dated 18.02.2021, passed by the\u00a0\u00a0 High\u00a0\u00a0 Court\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 Karnataka, at\u00a0\u00a0 Bengaluru, whereby their Criminal Revision Petition challenging the order dated 15.03.2018 of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru has\u00a0\u00a0 been\u00a0\u00a0 dismissed. Consequently, the Appellants\u2019 prayer to discharge them in connection with\u00a0\u00a0 FIR\u00a0\u00a0 No.\u00a0\u00a0 141\/2010\u00a0\u00a0 under\u00a0\u00a0 Sections\u00a0\u00a0 420, 468, 471\u00a0\u00a0 read\u00a0\u00a0 with Section\u00a0\u00a0 34\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at P.S. Adugodi, Bengaluru has been concurrently turned down.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Issues:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the actions of the Appellants prima facie constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC?<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellants:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Mr.\u00a0\u00a0 Ranbir Singh Yadav, Learned\u00a0\u00a0 Counsel\u00a0\u00a0 appearing\u00a0\u00a0 for the Appellants, argued that Respondent No. 2\u2019s complaint pertaining to the forgery of the passport application was merely a counterblast to the\u00a0\u00a0 Appellant\u00a0\u00a0 \u2013\u00a0\u00a0 wife\u2019s\u00a0\u00a0 complaint\u00a0\u00a0 alleging\u00a0\u00a0 cruelty\u00a0\u00a0 against\u00a0\u00a0 him.\u00a0\u00a0 He contended\u00a0\u00a0 that\u00a0\u00a0 Respondent\u00a0\u00a0 No.\u00a0\u00a0 2\u00a0\u00a0 had\u00a0\u00a0 expressly\u00a0\u00a0 consented\u00a0\u00a0 to obtaining\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 minor\u00a0\u00a0 child\u2019s\u00a0\u00a0 passport\u00a0\u00a0 and\u00a0\u00a0 after\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 issuance\u00a0\u00a0 of passport, had\u00a0\u00a0 even\u00a0\u00a0 sent\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 sponsorship\u00a0\u00a0 letter\u00a0\u00a0 authored\u00a0\u00a0 by\u00a0\u00a0 his brother\u00ad-in\u00ad-law, Dr. M.K. Shariff, for the relocation of the Appellant \u2013 wife\u00a0\u00a0 and\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 minor\u00a0\u00a0 child\u00a0\u00a0 to\u00a0\u00a0 London.\u00a0\u00a0 It\u00a0\u00a0 was\u00a0\u00a0 argued\u00a0\u00a0 that\u00a0\u00a0 this sponsorship letter is vital since it had been obtained at the instance of Respondent No. 2 and it specifically mentioned the passport number of the minor child, thereby implying consent of Respondent No. 2.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Mr.\u00a0\u00a0 Narender\u00a0\u00a0 Hooda, Learned\u00a0\u00a0 Senior\u00a0\u00a0 Counsel representing\u00a0\u00a0 Respondent\u00a0\u00a0 No.\u00a0\u00a0 2, strongly\u00a0\u00a0 refuted\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 allegations levelled by the Appellants. He strenuously urged that Respondent No. 2 was not present in India during the period from 13.07.2008 to 17.11.2009, when the alleged passport application with his forged signatures was submitted, to procure the minor child\u2019s passport. He further argued that the Trial Magistrate has unequivocally observed that the Passport Officer (Accused No. 4), who deliberately withheld the original passport application, was an accomplice in the offence of the\u00a0\u00a0 destruction\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 evidence.\u00a0\u00a0 Additionally, Mr.\u00a0\u00a0 Hooda\u00a0\u00a0 objected\u00a0\u00a0 to discarding the Truth Lab report at the stage of deciding the discharge application\u00a0\u00a0 on\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 premise\u00a0\u00a0 that\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 report\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 State\u00a0\u00a0 FSL\u00a0\u00a0 was ambiguous and that the veracity of the private lab report could be ascertained only at the time of trial.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court allowed the appeal and held that, \u201c<em>Consequently, the appeal is allowed; the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 18.02.2021, and that of the Trial Magistrate dated 15.03.2018, are hereby set aside. As a sequel thereto, the FIR No. 141 \/ 2010 registered at Police Station Adugodi, Bengaluru under Sections\u00a0\u00a0 420, 468, 471\u00a0\u00a0 read\u00a0\u00a0 with\u00a0\u00a0 Section\u00a0\u00a0 34\u00a0\u00a0 IPC, lodged\u00a0\u00a0 by Respondent\u00a0 No.\u00a0\u00a0 2\u00a0\u00a0 against\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 Appellants\u00a0\u00a0 and\u00a0\u00a0 all\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.\u00a0 Respondent No. 2 is liable to pay the cost of Rs. 1,00,000\/\u00ad to Appellant No. 1. Ordered accordingly, Respondent No. 2 shall pay the costs within six weeks, failing which the Trial Magistrate is directed to initiate coercive measures for recovery thereof.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Mariam Fasihuddin &amp; Anr.\u00a0 \u00a0[Appellant(s)]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 State by Adugodi Police Station &amp; Anr. [Respondent(s)] Criminal Appeal No.335\/ 2024 (2JB, SURYA KANT and DIPANKAR DATTA JJ., delivered by SURYA KANT, J.) Facts: The Appellants assail the judgment dated 18.02.2021, passed by the\u00a0\u00a0 High\u00a0\u00a0 Court\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 Karnataka, at\u00a0\u00a0 Bengaluru, whereby their Criminal Revision Petition challenging the order [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1453,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1451","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1451","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1451"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1451\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1455,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1451\/revisions\/1455"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1453"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1451"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1451"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1451"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}