|
Click
here if you would like to Contribute.
Click
here if you would like to send Feedback.
Section
420 of Indian Penal Code provides that
"Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make,
alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security,
or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable
of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine".
Ingredients:
1. Deception of any person.
2. Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing such person.
(a) to deliver any property to any person, or
(b) to consent that any person shall retain any property.
3. Intentionally inducing the person to do or omit
to do anything which he would not do or omit, if he were
not so deceived; and
4. Such act or omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation
or property.
The
offence is cognizable, non-bailable, and compoundable by
the person cheated, with the permission of the Court and
is triable by a Magistrate of the first class.
Breach of conditions of Hire-purchase agreement is not an
offence of cheating. (In Re: Abdul Rahim Vs. The Inspector
of Police).
It
was alleged by complainants that they had deposited money
with 3 accused persons for investment, but accused were
not available. It was held that alleged deposit was not
misappropriation and civil remedy was available to depositors
and therefore impugned FIR was liable to be quashed. (In
Re: Ranjit Singh Vs. The State of Punjab).
Where
accused gave cheque to complainant for the goods supplied
to him and the cheque was bounced having no sufficient fund
in his account, such conduct of accused amount to breach
of contract and not to cheating. (In Re: Radharaman Sadhu
Vs. Trilochan Nanda).
In Shankerlal Vishwakarma Vs. State of MP, the accused withdrew
amounts against false pay bills, but amount so withdrawn
was not entrusted to him and hence accused was guilty of
cheating and not of criminal breach of trust.
In
Paresh Nath Vs King Emperor, the accused represented to
R that he was in a position to sell his house and took Rs.2000/-
as earnest money by fraudulently suppressing the fact that
he had already sold the house, he was held guilty.
The dishonour of a cheque for an antecedent debt does not
amount to cheating.
It
should be noted that the existence of a civil remedy would
not necessarily exclude a trial by a criminal court of an
offence. There can not be any absolute proposition of law
that whenever a civil proceeding is pending between the
parties criminal proceedings can never be prosecuted with.
Click here if you would like to Contribute.
Click here if you would like to send Feedback.
|
