Rattan Singh and another vs Kanta Devi

S.K. Jain, J.

Harinder Singh died on 21.10.1982 in a roadside motor vehicle accident leaving behind Kanta Devi his widow, Geeta minor daughter, Rattan Singh and Smt. Parwati, parents. He also left the assets valuing at Rs. 11762.95. The parents obtained succession certificate from the Court on 7.11.1984 in their favour misrepresenting that they were the only heirs of their deceased son Harinder Singh. On the strength of the said succession certificate, Rattan Singh withdrew an amount of Rs. 394.16 from the Bank. Smt. Kanta Devi having come to know of the above facts instituted criminal complaint No. 74/C of 1986 under Section 120B, 193, 209, 419, 420, 446, 467 and 468 Indian Penal Code against Rattan Singh and Smt. Parwati in the Court of Sh. S.C. Goya, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rahtak who after recording pre charge evidence discharged the accused, vide his judgment dated 8.1.1988.

Feeling aggrieved Smt. Kanta Devi filed criminal revision No. 13 of 1988 which was heard by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak who vide his judgment dated 11.11.1988 found that even if it is assumed that charge under Sections 193 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code had not been made out against the accused there was sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has cheated the Bank and consequently cheated Smt. Kanta Devi and her minor child. The case under Section 420 Indian Penal Code had been prima facie made out. He accepted the revision petition, setaside the order dated 8.1.1988 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rohtak for proceeding according to law. This judgment of November 11, 1988 of Additional District Judge, Rohtak has been assailed before this Court in this Revision Petition.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that although case under Sections 193 and 209 Indian Penal Code had not been made out against the accused but they could certainly be charged under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code for their having cheated Kanta Devi and her minor child by obtaining a succession certificate from the Court on making false representation that they were the only heirs of the deceased and further on the strength of the said false certificate having withdrawn an amount of Rs. 187.28 from the Bank.

I do not find any substance in this argument.

It is admitted on both ends that in case of an offence under Sections 193 and 209 of Indian Penal Code, a complaint could be filed only by the Court where the false statement and claim was made by the accused. Since no such complaint had been filed by the Court granting succession certificate before whom such false claim and statement had been made by the accused, the complaint under these Sections filed by Smt. Kanta Devi was not maintainable. Now on to the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Section 415 of Indian Penal Code defines cheating which reads as under :

"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."

From the analytical examination of the above provision, it in evident that the ingredients required to constitute an offence 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

(b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and

(3) in cases covered by (2) (b) the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind reputation or property.

When the evidence on record is tested on the anvil of above provisions, it becomes clear that neither of the above three ingredients has been established on record. There is not even an iota of evidence that the accused had fraudulently or dishonestly induced Smt. Kanta Devi by deceiving her or that she had been induced to deliver any property either to the accused or any other person nor she was induced to consent that any person shall retain any property nor she was intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which she would not do or omit. As a matter of fact, the accused had not at all come in contact with Smt. Kanata Devi during the whole of the transaction of their having fraudulently obtained the succession certificate and on the strength thereof having withdrawn the money from the Bank.

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside. Resultantly, this petition is accepted.