Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court Section 149 IPC Cannot Be Invoked If Number Of Convicted Persons Falls Below Five After Acquittal Of Co-Accused: Allahabad High Court Requirement Of 'Clear Seven Days' Notice For No-Confidence Motion Under West Bengal Panchayat Act Is Procedural, Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court Cooperative Society’s General Body Cannot Ratify Appointment Made In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registered Will Executed In Hospital Carries Presumption Of Genuineness; Illness Doesn't Equal Unsound Mind: Delhi High Court Exacting Work From Teachers Without Paying Salary Amounts To 'Begar', Violates Article 23: Bombay High Court General & Omnibus Charge Sheet Lacking Individual Roles Of Accused In Matrimonial Case Is Abuse Of Process: Calcutta High Court Admission Of Claim By IRP Not An 'Acknowledgment Of Liability' Under Section 18 Limitation Act To Extend Limitation: Supreme Court Special Appeal Against Order Refusing To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Not Maintainable If Merits Of Original Case Not Decided: Allahabad High Court Prior Sanction Not Required For Magistrate To Direct FIR Registration Under Section 156(3) CrPC; It Is A Pre-Cognizance Stage: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Create Or Expand Criminal Offences In Absence Of Legislative Action: Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Specific Hate Speech Law State Cannot Reopen Regularisation Issues That Attained Finality; ISRO Must Grant Permanent Status To Daily-Wagers: Supreme Court Plaintiffs Seeking Declaration Of Title Must Succeed On Strength Of Own Title, Not Weakness Of Defendant’s Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court Interest Of Justice Demands Child Of Tender Age Remains In Mother's Custody: Himachal Pradesh High Court

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