Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1578 (KAR)

Deepa v. Madhav S/o Babu Nayak

2020-08-18

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2020
ORDER : This petition has been filed by accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) for quashing the FIR and complaint registered by Karwar Town Police Station in Crime No.92/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 511 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity) pending on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Karwar. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2-State. Respondent No.1-complainant is served and remained unrepresented. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that one Madhav s/o Babu Nayak-respondent No.1 herein has filed a complaint on 09.08.2016 alleging that between 05.08.2016 to 08.08.2016, he received phone calls from the petitioners and they induced him to purchase life insurance policy from Excide Insurance Company, M.G. Road, Bengaluru and offered him that if he purchases the said insurance policy, they will take him to Singapore at their costs with all facilities. The complainant alleged that the petitioners have induced and cheated him. On the basis of the said complaint, Karwar Town Police have registered a case in Crime No.92/2016 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 511 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners have not at all committed any offence as alleged in the complaint and alleged talks over the cell phone does not attract offence either under Section 420 or 511 of IPC. It is his further submission that mere talking over phone asking to purchase the insurance policy from the Company does not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 420 of IPC. It is his further submission that none of the essential ingredients of Section 420 or 511 have been made out. It is his further submission that the very registration of case by respondent No.2 is illegal arbitrary, capricious, perverse, unilateral and not in consonance with the provisions of IPC. It is his further submission that respondent No.1-complainant has not parted with any money or has not purchased the insurance policy. Therefore, the offence under Section 420 of IPC is not attracted. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. It is his further submission that respondent No.1-complainant has not parted with any money or has not purchased the insurance policy. Therefore, the offence under Section 420 of IPC is not attracted. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners, over phone, have induced respondent No.1-complainant to invest Rs.50,000/-by purchasing the life insurance policy from Exide Insurance Company giving a false offer of taking him and his wife to Singapore tour free of cost and the said act by the petitioners attracts an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. An offence of cheating is defined under Section 415 of IPC. The ingredients of Section 415 are: (1) Deception of any person. (2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person- (i) to deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 7. ‘Deceive’ is one of the ingredients of offence of cheating. ‘Delivery of any property’ is another ingredient of cheating. Respondent No.1-complainant has not been deceived and he has not parted with any property i.e., investment of Rs.50,000/-with the petitioners. The act of the petitioners making a phone call and inducing him to invest Rs.50,000/-by purchasing a insurance policy from Exide Insurance Company and promising of taking him to Singapore tour free of cost is an offer. If the complainant parts with the said money and purchases the insurance policy and thereafter if the petitioners does not fulfill their promise of taking him to Singapore tour, then, the said act amounts to cheating. Therefore, the act of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 does not attract offence of cheating or attempting to cheat punishable under Section 420 and 511 of IPC respectively. Therefore, the registration of FIR against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 was not warranted. It is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the FIR, registered against the petitioners in Crime No.92/2016 by Karwar Town Police Station requires to be quashed. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. Therefore, the registration of FIR against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 was not warranted. It is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the FIR, registered against the petitioners in Crime No.92/2016 by Karwar Town Police Station requires to be quashed. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. FIR in Crime No.92/2016 by Karwar Town Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 511 read with Section 34 of IPC is quashed. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.1/2018 filed for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.