http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: G.V.  RAO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: L.H.V.  PRASAD & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/03/2000

BENCH: S.S.Ahmad, D.P.Wadhwa

JUDGMENT:

S.SAGHIR AHMAD, J.       This  Special  Leave Petition was dismissed by  us  on 04.10.1999.    We,  hereinbelow,  give   our   reasons   for dismissing  the Special Leave Petition.  The petitioner is a Post-Doctoral  fellow  at Centre for Cellular and  Molecular Biology,  Hyderabad.   He  invited  marriage  proposals  for himself through advertisement in Deccan Chronicle dated 27th of  January,  1994,  in pursuance of which  respondent  No.1 approached  the petitioner and furnished the particulars  of respondent  No.4  who is his sister.  It was represented  by respondent  No.1  that respondent No.4 was born on  29th  of June,  1966 and they belonged to Thurupukapu Community.  The petitioner  himself  gave  out that he  belonged  to  Gujala Balija   Community  which  was  a  forward  community   and, therefore,  he wanted a wife from a forward community.   The parents  of  respondent No.4, who are respondents 2 to 3  in this  petition,  met the parents of the petitioner and  they talked  and the marriage proposal was finalised.   Betrothel ceremony  took  place  on 27th of June, 1994 and  later  the marriage  took place on 19.8.94.  On 4th of March, 1997, the petitioner,  allegedly, came to know that respondents 1 to 4 belonged  to  Kondakapu  Community, which  was  a  Scheduled Tribe,   and   it  was  then   that  he  realised  that   by misrepresenting   themselves  as   members  of   Thurupukapu Community,  they had lured the petitioner into wedlock,  for which  the  petitioner would not have agreed at all, had  he known  that  the respondents did not belong  to  Thurupukapu Community  but  belonged to Kondakapu Community.  It was  in these  circumstances that he filed a complaint in the  Court on  10.7.1996 under Section 415, 419, 420 read with  Section 34  IPC which was referred to Station House Officer,  Police Station  Alwal,  Rangareddy  District,  Andhra  Pradesh  for investigation  and  report.   Since  the  investigation  was considerably  delayed,  the petitioner filed  Writ  Petition No.11477  of  1997 in the High Court for a Writ of  Mandamus directing   the  Station  House   Officer  to  expedite  the investigation.   While  the  Writ Petition was  pending,  an affidavit  was filed by the Station House Officer that after completing   the  investigation,  he   had   submitted   the chargesheet   in   the  Court  on  28.5.1997   against   the respondents.   The respondents, however, approached the High Court  through a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  seeking the  quashing  of the FIR which was allowed by the  impugned judgment and it is in these circumstances that this petition has  been  filed  in this Court.  Learned  counsel  for  the petitioner  has  contended  that  the  High  Court  was  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

justified  in quashing the complaint (FIR) as a  chargesheet had  already  been submitted after the investigation  and  a prima  facie case was made out against the respondents.   He has  further contended that the High Court was wrong in  its interpretation  of Section 415 IPC.  Before considering  the contention  of  the  learned counsel for the  petitioner  on merits,  we  may  state  another  important  fact  that  the petitioner  himself is facing a case under Section 498-A IPC instituted  by the respondents against him.  It is stated in the  petition  that  this prosecution was  launched  by  the respondents against the petitioner as a counter-blast to the notice dated 13.6.1995 which was issued by him to respondent No.1 as to why he had misrepresented about his caste and why had  he  represented to the petitioner that he  belonged  to Thurupukapu  Community instead of Kondakapu Community.   The CHEATING  is defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code which  provides  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". Explanation.-   A  dishonest  concealment  of  facts  is   a deception  within  the  meaning of this section."  The  High Court quashed the proceedings principally on the ground that Chapter  XVII  of  the  Indian Penal  Code  deals  with  the offences against properties and, therefore, Section 415 must also  necessarily  relate  to  the property  which,  in  the instant case, is not involved and, consequently, the FIR was liable  to  be quashed.  The broad proposition on which  the High  Court proceeded is not correct.  While the first  part of  the  defition relates to property, the second part  need not  necessarily  relate  to property.  The second  part  is reproduced  below:-  ".........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"." This part speaks of intentional deception which  must  be  intended  not only  to  induce  the  person deceived  to  do or omit to do something but also  to  cause damage  or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation  or property.    The  intentional   deception  presupposes   the existence  of  a  dominant motive of the person  making  the inducement.   Such  inducement  should have led  the  person deceived  or  induced to do or omit to do anything which  he would  not  have  done  or  omitted to do  if  he  were  not deceived.   The  further  requirement is that  such  act  or omission  should  have caused damage or harm to body,  mind, reputation or property.  As mentioned above, Section 415 has two  parts.   While  in  the first  part,  the  person  must "dishonestly"  or  "fraudulently" induce the complainant  to deliver any property;  in the second part, the person should intentionally  induce the complainant to do or omit to do  a thing.   That is to say, in the first part, inducement  must be  dishonest  or  fraudulent.   In  the  second  part,  the inducement should be intentional.  As observed by this Court in Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney vs.  State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC  575  =  1956  Crl.L.J.  1611 = 1956 SCR  483,  a  guilty intention  is  an  essential ingredient of  the  offence  of cheating.   In  order, therefore, to secure conviction of  a person  for the offence of cheating, "mens rea" on the  part

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

of  that person, must be established.  It was also  observed in Mahadeo Prasad vs.  State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 724 =  1954  Cr.L.J.   1806,  that in order  to  constitute  the offence  of cheating, the intention to deceive should be  in existence  at  the  time when the  inducement  was  offered. Thus,  so  far as second part of Section 415  is  concerned, "property",  at no stage, is involved.  Here it is the doing of  an act or omission to do an act by the complainant, as a result  of  intentional inducement by the accused, which  is material.   Such inducement should result in the doing of an act or omission to do an act as a result of which the person concerned  should  have  suffered or was  likely  to  suffer damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property.  In an old  decision  of  the Allahabad High Court  in  Empress  v. Sheoram  and  another,  (1882)  2 AWN 237, it  was  held  by Mahmood,  J.:- "That to palm off a young woman as  belonging to a caste different to the one to which she really belongs, with  the object of obtaining money, amounts to the  offence of cheating by personation as defined in s.416 of the Indian Penal  Code,  which  must  be  read  in  the  light  of  the preceding,   s.415."   In  an   another  old   decision   in Queen-Empress  v.  Ramka Kom Sadhu, ILR (1887) 2 Bombay  59, it  was  held that a prostitute may be charged for  cheating under  Section  417  if the intercourse was induced  by  any misrepresentation  on her part that she did not suffer  from syphilis.   In  Queen  vs.  Dabee Singh and  others,  (1867) Weekly Reporter (Crl.) 55, the Calcutta High Court convicted a  person  under Section 417 who had brought two  girls  and palmed  them  off as women of a much higher caste than  they really were and married to two Rajputs after receiving usual bonus.  It was further held that the two Rajputs who married the  two girls on the faith that they were marrying women of their   own   caste  and   status,  were  fraudulently   and dishonestly  induced by deception to do a thing (that is  to say,  to  marry women of a caste wholly prohibited to  them) which  but  for  the deception practised upon  them  by  the accused,  they  would have omitted to do.  In  another  case which was almost similar to the one mentioned above, namely, Queen  vs.   Puddomonie Boistobee, (1866) 5 Weekly  Reporter (Crl.)  98, a person was induced to part with his money  and to  contract  marriage under the false impression  that  the girl  he  was  marrying  was a Brahminee.   The  person  who induced  the  complainant into marrying that girl  was  held liable  for punishment under Section 417 IPC.  Having regard to  the above discussion, the High Court, as we have already observed  earlier, was not correct in its interpretation  of the  provisions  contained  under Section 415  IPC  but  the important question for our consideration is that, should we, having  regard  to the facts of this case,  interfere  under Article 136 of the Constitution.  There has been an outburst of  matrimonial disputes in recent times.  The marriage is a sacred  ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young  couple  to settle down in life and  live  peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume  serious  proportions  resulting   in  commission  of heinous  crimes  in  which  elders of the  family  are  also involved  with  the  result  that   those  who  could   have counselled  and  brought  about rapprochement  are  rendered helpless  on their being arrayed as accused in the  criminal case.   There  are  many  other reasons which  need  not  be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that  the  parties  may  ponder   over  their  defaults  and terminate  their  disputes  amicably   by  mutual  agreement instead  of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years  and years to conclude and in that process the parties

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

lose  their  "young"  days  in   chasing  their  "cases"  in different  courts.  The petitioner himself is a Scientist at the  Centre for DNA Finger Printing & Diagnostics, Hyderabad which  is a prestigious Institution of the country.  In this capacity,  he can be reasonably presumed to be aware of  the bio-diversity  at  the Cellular and Molecular level  amongst human  beings  without  the "caste" having any role  in  the field of Human Biotechnology.  It was for these reasons that the  Petition, being without merit, was dismissed on October 4, 1999.