Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

FIR Quashed | There Must be Intentional inducement and dishonesty to establish  offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India, led by Justices B.R. Gavai, Rajesh Bindal, and Sandeep Mehta, quashed the FIR and consequent charge-sheet against A.M. Mohan, involved in a financial and real estate-related fraud case. The apex court ruled that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant constituted an abuse of the process of law, leading to miscarriage of justice.

The case revolved around a First Information Report (FIR) registered for offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) involving financial transactions and real estate deals. A.M. Mohan, the appellant, was implicated in a case concerning financial transactions with the complainant, which eventually led to allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The core issue was whether the appellant had indeed played a role in inducing the complainant fraudulently, warranting the invocation of Sections 420 and 34 IPC.

The Supreme Court conducted a thorough examination of the case, highlighting the need for intentional inducement and dishonesty in establishing the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. The court noted, “For attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out” [Para 13].

Upon assessing the FIR and the charge-sheet, the Court found no substantial evidence of intentional inducement or fraudulent behavior by the appellant. The transactions involving Mohan were straightforward, with no deception or dishonest intention discernible, differentiating his actions from those of the co-accused [Para 19].

Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principles for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool in civil disputes and to prevent the misuse of the process of law [Para 9-11].

Decision: The Supreme Court, taking into account the lack of evidence implicating A.M. Mohan in the alleged cheating and fraudulent transaction, decided to quash the FIR and the charge-sheet against him. The proceedings were deemed to be an abuse of the process of law concerning the appellant [Para 24-25].

Date of Decision: 20th March 2024

A.M. Mohan v. The State Represented by SHO and Another

Latest Legal News