Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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