the complainant that upon fraudulent or dishonest inducement
the complainant parted with money, rather, the simple case to
which the complainant came forth, is that settlement of marriage
on being broken, the accused promised to pay a sum of Rs.5
lakhs, which the accused did not pay and thereby it becomes a
pure case of breach of contract, if any, and hence, question of
attracting offence of cheating does not arise.
Similarly, case of defamation is also not made out as
it has never been the case of the complainant that any imputation
was made against the complainant or her family members to
harm her reputation. Allegation what is there is that the accused
No.1 sent several messages on the mobile of son of the
complainant asking her to cancel the marriage, which allegation
does not have ingredients for constituting offence of defamation as
has been defined under Section 499. Similarly, nothing appears to
be there in the complaint to constitute an offence of criminal
intimidation as has been defined under Section 503 of the IPC, as
no such allegation is there to the effect that the accused did
threat either to the complainant or her family members with an
injury or to her reputation or property with intention to cause
alarm to the complainant or other or to cause that person to do
any act which he is not likely bound to do so. Thus, there appears
to be no allegation whatsoever to the effect that the accused did
ever threat the complainant to injure her reputation and thereby
offence of criminal intimidation also does not get attracted. Under
the circumstances, the First Information Report warrants to be
quashed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRIL PETITION NO.20 OF 2015
Tekcham Romita Devi V State of Manipur
BEFORE
MR.JUSTICE RAKESH RANJAN PRASAD
Dated:6-4-2016
Citation: 2016 CRLJ(NOC)207 Manipur
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the respondent.
2. This application has been filed for quashing of the FIR
bearing No.152(6) 2015 TBL P.S registered under Section 120-
B/417/420/500/506/34 IPC. 2
3. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties the case of the prosecution, as has been
made out in the FIR needs to be taken notice of.
A complaint was lodged by the
complainant/informant/respondent in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Thoubal, Manipur alleging therein that one
O.Ramananda Singh, son of the complainant, eloped the accused.
Tekcham Romita Devi, daughter of Tekcham Thambou Singh of
Lamding Cherapur, with her full consent on 25.3.2015 at about
4.30 a.m. On the next day, i.e., 26.3.2015 at 5 p.m. the
complainant and her family members took Tekcham Romita Devi
(Accused No.1) to her parental home to inform her family
members about her elopement by O.Ramananda Singh, son of the
complainant. On the same day, family members of both the
parties agreed to get the marriage performed on 31.5.2015 and
before that to have rituals of Heijing Pot on 28.5.2015 as per the
Hindu Manipuri custom. Accordingly, complainant did purchase
materials to be used during marriage ceremony and even
invitation cards were distributed among friends and relatives.
Further case is that while the complainant was busy
in making preparation for marriage ceremony, accused No.2,
Tekcham Thambou Singh, father of the girl (accused No.1) came
to the house of the complainant on 22.5.2015 along with others to
inform her about postponement of the date of marriage to other
date as some bereavement had taken place in their family. After
some days, accused No.2 along with others again came and
informed to the complainant that his daughter (accused No.1) has
been eloped by some other person. In that event, it was agreed
upon the parties that the marriage settled in between them be
cancelled and the accused persons pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the
family of the complainant as compensation on account of
cancellation of marriage in between the accused No.1 and son of
the complainant. Even an agreement was executed to that effect
stipulating dates on which money was to be given in instalments.
Before all it happened, the accused No.1 had sent several
messages on the mobile of the son of the complainant for
cancelling the marriage.
Thus, it has been alleged that the accused person
committed offence of cheating as well as defamation.
The said complaint was sent to the concerned Police
Station for its registration and investigation. Accordingly, it was
registered as FIR No.152(6) 2015 TBL P.S under Section 120-
B/417/420/500/506/34 IPC which FIR has been sought to be
quashed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that accepting the entire allegations made in the FIR to be true,
no offence is made out either of cheating, defamation or any other
offence under which case has been registered and thereby the
instant FIR is fit to be quashed.
As against this, learned counsel for the complainantrespondent
as well as State submitted that the matter is under
investigation and it is quite likely that the materials which may
constitute offences under which FIR has been registered be
collected by I.O., and thereby it is not the stage ripe for quashing
of the FIR, particularly when allegation is there of committing
offence of cheating and defamation and hence, instant application
is fit to be dismissed.
5. In the context of submissions, I would straightway be
referring to the provision as enshrined under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, which is to be exercised to prevent
the abuse of process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice. The section itself envisages three circumstances under
which inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely: (i) to give
effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of process
of Court and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
Undoubtedly, the power possessed by the High Court under the
said provision is very wide but numerous decisions are there
giving caution to the Court to exercise it sparingly, carefully and
cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which alone the
Court exists. Here at this stage it will be pertinent to refer to a
case of R.P.Kapoor Vs State of Punjab: AIR 1960 SC 866
wherein their Lordships did summarise some of the categories of
cases where the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code 4
could be exercised by the court to quash criminal proceeding
against the accused, which are as follows: (i) where it manifestly
appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or
continuance of the proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the
allegations in the First Information Report or the complainant,
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not
constitute any offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute
an offence but there is either no legal evidence adduced or the
evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
It be stated that long back ago the principle which
was enunciated is still being followed that the FIR is liable to be
quashed by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482
when the allegations made therein do not constitute any offence.
Coming to the fact of the case, it be reiterated that
FIR has been registered under Section 417/420/500/506 IPC on
the allegation that marriage in between the accused No.1 and son
of the complainant being settled was subsequently cancelled on
the ground that the girl (accused No.1) did elope another boy and
thereby the accused person agreed to pay a compensation of Rs.5
lakhs, which was not paid. Accepting this allegation to be true, no
offence of cheating is made out. Section 415 deals with cheating
which reads as follows:
“425. 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 of 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 bare reading of the Section one finds that to
hold a person guilty of cheating as defined in Section 415 it is
necessary to show that at the time of making promise he had
fraudulent or dishonest intention to retain the property or to
induce the person so deceived to do something which he would
not otherwise do. 5
6. The ingredients required to constitute an offence of
cheating have been succinctly laid down in the case of Ram Jas
Vs State of U.P : (1970) 2 SCC 740, which are follows.
(i) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement
of a person by deceiving him;
(ii)(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;
(iii) In cases covered by (ii) (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.”
7. Here, in the instant case, it has never been the case of
the complainant that upon fraudulent or dishonest inducement
the complainant parted with money, rather, the simple case to
which the complainant came forth, is that settlement of marriage
on being broken, the accused promised to pay a sum of Rs.5
lakhs, which the accused did not pay and thereby it becomes a
pure case of breach of contract, if any, and hence, question of
attracting offence of cheating does not arise.
Similarly, case of defamation is also not made out as
it has never been the case of the complainant that any imputation
was made against the complainant or her family members to
harm her reputation. Allegation what is there is that the accused
No.1 sent several messages on the mobile of son of the
complainant asking her to cancel the marriage, which allegation
does not have ingredients for constituting offence of defamation as
has been defined under Section 499. Similarly, nothing appears to
be there in the complaint to constitute an offence of criminal
intimidation as has been defined under Section 503 of the IPC, as
no such allegation is there to the effect that the accused did
threat either to the complainant or her family members with an
injury or to her reputation or property with intention to cause
alarm to the complainant or other or to cause that person to do 6
any act which he is not likely bound to do so. Thus, there appears
to be no allegation whatsoever to the effect that the accused did
ever threat the complainant to injure her reputation and thereby
offence of criminal intimidation also does not get attracted. Under
the circumstances, the First Information Report warrants to be
quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed.
In the result, this application stands allowed.
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment