Partly allowed

Smt Khatoon v. Ramjan Khan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC6 May 2024CRLR/558/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition was dismissed. The High Court held that no case for cheating under Section 420 IPC was made out because the complainant did not withdraw the criminal cases in pursuance of the alleged agreement, failing to establish the necessary ingredients of the offence regardless of the property disposal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order in Criminal Appeal No. 174/2017 and the order dated 20.01.2017 are affirmed; the revision petition is dismissed.

Smt Khatoon Vs Ramjan Khan and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:19830]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 558/2018

¶4

Smt. Khatoon W/o Ramjan D/o Nijjamuddin, By Caste Musalman, R/o Kadwad Basni, P.s. Kadwad, Tehsil And District Jodhpur Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ramjan Khan S/o Usman Khan, By Caste Musalman, R/o Gelawas, P.s. Jhanwar, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.

¶8

State Of Rajasthan

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. KuldeepSharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mukesh Trivedi,PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶12

Order

¶13

06/05/2024

¶14

Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 05.04.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metrpolitan in Criminal Appeal No. 174/2017 by which the learned Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 20.01.2017 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur whereby, he discharged the accused respondent no.1 from offence under Section 420 IPC. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner complainant filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur against the respondent no.1 and others for offence under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 473, 457, 379, 120B IPC. It was stated in the complaint that the complainant is the wife of accused

[2024:RJ-JD:19830]

[CRLR-558/2018]

(2 of 4)

respondent no.1. The petitioner had filed case against the accused for demand of dowry and under Domestic Violence Act. During pendency of the proceedings, the respondent had entered into a compromise and it was agreed that half share of land falling in Khasra No.77/1 measuring 1 bigha 5 biswa and half share of house shall be given to the complainant. As per compromise, the accused gave half portion of his house but refused to give possession of the land and she came to know that the accused had sold the land.

¶19

The complaint was sent to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and FIR No. 416/2012 came to be registered for offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 473, 457, 379, 120B IPC. The police after investigation filed chargesheet against the accused respondent no.1.

¶20

The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused respondent no.1 but after arguments on charge, the trial court discharged him from the offence under Section 420 IPC vide order dated 20.01.2017.

¶21

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner complainant filed an appeal before the court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan who are hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 05.04.2018. Hence, this revision petition.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent accused no.1 had entered into a compromise with the petitioner and it was agreed by the respondent no.1 that he would give half share in the land situated in Khasra No. 77/1. However, the accused respondent no.1 while forging his signatures sold the land and thus committed cheating. It is argued that as per

[2024:RJ-JD:19830]

[CRLR-558/2018]

(3 of 4)

agreement, she was assured that the accused respondent would give half share of his property to her in land. Since accused respondent did not comply with the conditions of the agreement, she has been subjected to cheating and therefore, offence under Section 420 IPC is clearly made out against the respondent no.1. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside and cognizance ought to be taken against the respondent no.1 for offence under Section 420 IPC.

¶27

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and carefully considered the material placed on record.

¶28

The offences punishable Under Sections 419 and 420 IPC relate to cheating by personation and cheating by dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Sine qua non of the offence of cheating Under Section 420 IPC is (i) inducement made of other party to part with money (ii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time the other party parted with the money. Dishonest intention by which inducement is practised must be established to have been the reason for the complainant to part with the money.

¶29

As to whether the offence of cheating is made out or not is to be established by the complainant. At the time of taking of the cognizance of an offence, the court has only to see whether prima facie there are reasons for issuing the process and whether the ingredients of offence are made out in the complaint.

¶30

It is paramount that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has

[2024:RJ-JD:19830]

[CRLR-558/2018]

(4 of 4)

dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. There are, thus, three components of this offence, i.e., (i) deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and (iii) mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement. It goes without saying that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made.

¶35

In the present case, the allegation against the respondent accused no.1 is that he forged the signatures of the complainant on the agreement and sold the land and thus, did not abide by the agreement entered into by the parties. The appellate court has specifically observed in the impugned judgment that had the complainant withdrew the criminal cases in pursuance of said agreement, then offence of Section 420 IPC would have been made out whereas, no such circumstance exists in the present case.

¶36

In light of the above discussion, no case is made out for interference in the orders dated 05.04.2018 and 20.01.2017. The revision petition having no force is hereby dismissed.

¶37

Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.

¶38

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶39

208-BJSH/-

Smt Khatoon v. Ramjan Khan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Khatoon v. Ramjan Khan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mobin Vs State of Rajasthan

Nana Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalu Ram Vs State

Tara Chand Vs State

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahaveer Dholi Vs State of Rajasthan