“The Deceptive Knot: When Wedding Bells Turn to Echoes”
Raju Krishna Shedbalkar v. The State of Karnataka & Another,
Criminal Appeal 577/2024,
Before Supreme Court of India
Order
Apex Court allowed the appeal on 02.02.2024 and set aside the order of the High Court to the extent it has refrained from quashing the proceedings under Section 417 IPC against the present appellant.
Apex Court held that High Court’s reasoning for upholding the proceedings under Section 417against the present appellant is patently incorrect.
According to the High Court as the father of the informant was induced by the appellant to book a marriage hall therefore, there is prima facie material which makes out a case under Section 417 IPC.
Background
The appellant had challenged the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka on 12.07.2021 by which his 482 petition was only partly allowed.
High Court has quashed the proceedings regarding offences under Sections 406/420/417 IPC with regard to the co-accused. With regard to the present appellant section406/420IPC was quashed but the criminal proceedings U/s 417 IPC was not quashed.
Aggrieved appellant filed Criminal Appeal before the Apex Court.
Facts
Informant Ms. Sushmita (Respondent no.2 in this Appeal) had lodged her FIR at Malamaruti Police Station, Karnataka under Sections 406/420/417 read with Section 34 IPC against present appellant, mother, brothers & sisters.
The FIR, primarily related to offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
It was stated in the FIR that the informant is M. Tech. graduate and was working as a lecturer.
Her elders were searching a suitable bridegroom for her which they found in the present appellant.
The appellant and the informant were thereafter talking to each other on phone and her father had also given Rs.75,000/- in advance for the marriage hall, but this marriage never took place as she learnt from a newspaper report that the appellant has in fact married someone else!
Observation of the High court
406 IPC – Criminal Breach of Trust
To constitute an offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC, there must be criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of IPC.
To constitute criminal breach of trust, there must be entrustment of the property or domain over the property or there must be dishonest misappropriation of such property.
Fact of the Case
A sum of Rs.15,000/- was paid to accused No.1 for purchase of clothes and spent Rs.75,000/- for booking the marriage hall, the ingredients of Section 405 of IPC is not attracted.
It cannot be said that there was entrustment of property and· there is dishonest, misappropriation of the same. Therefore, the offence under Section 406 of IPC is not made out.
420 IPC – Cheating and Dishonestly inducing Delivery of Property
To constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, there must be cheating dishonestly by inducing the person to deliver any property or to make alter or destroy the whole or any part of valuable security etc.
Fact of the Case
On perusal of the first information in detail, it is revealed that even these requirements to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out.
417 IPC – Punishment for cheating
Facts of case
Accused No. l (Present appellant) was having intention to deceive the informant, received the money for purchase of clothes and also got booked the marriage hall.
Prima facie it constitutes the offence under Section 415 of IPC punishable under Section 417 of IPC.
I do not find any reason to reject this contention ignoring the specific averments made in the first information.
Observation of the Supreme Court
Prerequisites to constitute the offence of cheating
. By no stretch of imagination, this is even reflected from the complaint made by the informant.
There can be multiple reasons for initiating a marriage proposal and then the proposal not reaching the desired end.
It may in a given case involve cheating; it is possible theoretically yet in order to prove an offence of cheating in such cases prosecution must have reliable and trustworthy evidence in order to first prosecute such a case.
There is no such evidence before the prosecution and therefore no offence under Section 417 is also made out.
Where a person fraudulently or dishonestly deceives another in inducing that person to deliver any property to any person etc.
If somebody is deceived to do an act which causes damage or harm to that person “in body, mind, or reputation or property is said to have cheated.
Seema Bhatnagar
