In Absence Of ‘Inducement’ And ‘Delivery Of Property’, Act Of Accused Will Fall U/ S 417 IPC And Not U/S 420 IPC: Calcutta HC
|The Calcutta High has observed that in the absence of ingredients of ‘inducement’ and ‘delivery of property’, the act of an accused will fall under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and not under Section 420 of the IPC.
The Court differentiated between the offence of ‘Cheating’ under Section 417 and Section 420 of the IPC.
Petitioners preferred a revision petition inter alia praying for quashing of proceedings pending before the Magistrate in a case arising under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the IPC.
The Bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De observed, “Section 417 of the IPC deals with all kinds of cheating. Therefore, though ingredients of ii (b) & ii(c) were excluded from Section 420 of the IPC but in such cases accused may be dealt with under Section 417 of the IPC…In view of the aforesaid discussion, what I find is that key ingredients of Section 420 of IPC are ‘inducement’ and ‘delivery of property’. In our case, FIR did not disclose any such inducement to deliver property rather FIR discloses an act of inducement by the accused to do an act by the complainant which he ought not to have done, if he was not so deceived…Unfortunately, such act on the part of the accused does not come within the purview of 420 of the IPC but it attracts the offence under Section 417 of the IPC which is a non- cognizable offence.”
Advocate Sourav Chatterjee appeared for the Petitioners whereas Advocates Sauradeep Dutta and Shekhar Barman appeared for the Respondents.
A complaint was filed by the opposite parties after the petitioners cancelled the marriage ceremony. The opposite parties alleged that the Petitioners intentionally caused wrongful loss to them by cancelling the wedding. It was the case of the Petitioners that neither any inducement was caused to deliver any property to the petitioners leading to wrongful loss to the opposite party no. 2 or wrongful gain to the petitioners to attract the provision of Section 420 of the IPC.
The Court examined the definition of cheating as depicted under Section 415 and Section 420 of the IPC. The Court said, “If I take both the provisions in juxtaposition, it would be clear that Section 420 only deals with an act of inducement to deliver the property not any inducement to do or not to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived…After dissection of provision of Section 415 of the IPC following ingredients are found: i. Accused must deceive the complainant fraudulently, dishonestly or intentionally. ii. The complainant must have been induced to: a. Deliver any property or allow any person to retain any property. b. Do or omit to do anything which he ought not to have done, if he was not so deceived. c. The act or omission likely to cause any harm to the complainant in body, mind, reputation or property.”
The Court also said that the legislature consciously excluded the ingredients ii (b) & ii (c) as discussed in paragraph 22 from the provision of Section 420 of the IPC. Had not been so, the legislature would not have codified the penal provision of Section 417 of the IPC which, in my opinion, deals with the ingredients number ii(b) & ii(c) of the provision of Section 415 of IPC, the Court said.
The Court also observed that Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that no Police Officer can investigate any non-cognizable offence without an order of a Magistrate unlike this case where a specific police case was registered under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the IPC and investigation was conducted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the proceedings in the case.
Cause Title: Keya Talukdar and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Anr.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Advocates Sourav Chatterjee, Pratim Chatterjee and Shyamal Kumar Das.
Respondents: Advocates Sauradeep Dutta and Shekhar Barman