Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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