MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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