ARCHANA RANA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 29

CITATION	2021 SCC OnLine SC 93
DATE OF JUDGMENT	1^st March 2021
COURT	Supreme Court of India
PETITIONER	Archana Rana
RESPONDENT	State of Uttar Pradesh
BENCH	M.R. Shah

INTRODUCTION

The case revolves around quashing of chargesheet filed by the respondent against the appellant as the appellant’s husband has taken a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 from him for getting his son employment. However, his son didn’t get any employment and when the complainant asked for the money back, he was thrown out of the house and was assaulted brutally. The complainant and his son were also thrown out of the house by the appellant. The appellant, at first approached the High Court to quash the chargesheet, which got dismissed and the High Court refused to quash the proceedings and the chargesheet. This eventually led him to file an appeal in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the whole chargesheet couldn’t have been squashed, but some offences could have been quashed as they didn’t constitute the essential ingredients required to commit that offence. The whole case revolved around the fact if the facst of the case constituted the ingredients necessary for commission of offence under Section 419 and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, which deal with cheating in different ways. After hearing the contentions of both the sides and evaluating the essentials needed for the above mentioned offences , the Supreme Court gave its final verdict.

FACTS OF THE CASE

An FIR was filed by the complainant against the appellant under Sections 419, 420, 323, 504 and 506 IPC for taking Rs. 5 lakh from the complainant on the condition of getting employment for his son. However, he got no employment and when they asked for their money back, the appellant assaulted them and threatened them to falsely implicate them in criminal cases.
The case was registered in the police station of Kotwali, which lies in Azamgarh. Subsequently, a chargesheet was also filed by the police, for the quashing of which the appeal was done at the Supreme Court.
When the matter went to the High Court of Allahabad, it was declared by the court that neither the chargesheet would be squashed nor would any of the proceedings against the appellant stop.
This led to the appellant being left dissatisfied and aggrieved by the judgement of the High Court of Allahabad , so he filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
The contentions from both the parties were heard, essential ingredients of cheating were analysed and a verdict was declared which was not completely in favour of the appellant.

ISSUES THAT AROSE

Whether there are enough essential ingredients undertaken by the appellant to be able to constitute an offence under Section 419 and Section 420 of the IPC?
Whether the High Court could quash the chargesheet and pending proceedings against the appellant ?

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The learned counsel for the appellant suggested that even after a careful reading of the FIR and allegations placed upon his client, no case can be made, thus he is falsely implicated.
The counsel for the appellant urged the court to reconsider the allegations made against his client for committing an offence under Section 419 and Section 420 , it has been observed that the complaint does not even constitute the necessary ingredients to constitute that offence.
The counsel of the appellant also submitted that as the complaints taken as it is , on their face don’t constitute any offence under Section 419 and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code which is why the appellant should be cleared off with those allegations.
The counsel also mentioned that it was wrong of the High Court of Allahabad to not quash the chargesheet containing Sections 419, 420, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.
Heavy reliance was placed by the counsel representing the appellant on previous judgements declared in Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha
Seetharam and Dr. Lakshman v. State of Karnataka.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

There were two respondents in this case, one was the state and the other one was the complainant itself. However, no body appeared from the side of the complainant even after being served with the notice to do so.
The counsel for the state accepted that they were in no position howsoever to make a case against the appellant under Section 419 and Section 420 of IPC which deal with different ways to cheat people.
The counsel for the respondent urged before the court that they were able to make a case against the appellant in matters related to Section 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC.
The counsel pleaded before the court to retain the case against the appellant under other sections as the appellant had committed an offence under those sections by promising false employment to the complainant and then threatening them and assaulting them brutally.

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

After filing of the chargesheet by the complainant against the appellant, the appellant approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to quash the chargesheet under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code along with the entire criminal proceedings. However, the High Court refused to quash such proceedings and chargesheet against the appellant. Therefore, the appellant appealed before the the Supreme Court for the same.

The Supreme Court analysed various provisions and various ingredients necessary to constitute a crime under Section 419 and Section 420. The Supreme Court placed reliance on the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy(supra) in which the court observed the essential ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC. It was held that a person must have committed cheating under Section 415 of IPC, a person must be dishonestly induced to deliver property or make, alter, destroy any valuable security to constitute an offence under Section 420. In conclusion, a fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 415 IPC.

After taking into account all the essentials and previous judgements, it was held by the Supreme Court that there is no case that can be made against the appellant under Section 419 and Section 420 of IPC since there is lack of essential ingredients. After considering all the averments and complaints in this matter, it was observed that the allegation for taking money to provide job have been made against the husband of the appellant. Due to lack of clarity that the appellant was the receiver of the money , this case doesn’t involve cheating. The Supreme Court ordered that it would have been right for the high court to quash the allegations under Section 419 and Section 420 of IPC.

The high court failed to establish its jurisdiction correctly by failing to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant under the aforementioned sections. However, the high court was right in not quashing the criminal proceedings qua the said offences. It was finally held that the criminal proceedings pending in the court of Azamgarh, against the appellant under Section 419 and Section 420 are quashed aside. This doesn’t put a stop to the criminal proceedings that would go on for offences under Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, they would go on as per the chargesheet.

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

This case is not like any other else. To form a judgement for this case, reliance was placed upon previous decisions and judgements given by various courts in matters related to cheating. The Supreme Court, before giving a judgement in this case, looked into the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam (2019) and Dr. Lakshman v. State of Karnataka. These cases had mentioned the essential ingredients for the offence of cheating among other offences. Cheating is defined under Section 415 of IPC and for a person to commit the crime of cheating it is necessary for him to do fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him.

After doing a good analysis of the above mentioned cases and applying them to the current case, the Supreme Court finally reached a verdict where it held that the current case does not comprise of any offence of cheating as the essential ingredients are missing. The judgement was given on two issues. The first judgement dealt with section 419 and section 420 , it was declared that the high court could quash allegations on those sections. Still, criminal proceedings pending against the appellant in relation to other offences were continued.

CONCLUSION OF THE CASE

This case is the real example of how it is important for the complainant to prove the allegations made by him against the other person. If they fail to make a case or prove their points then the court can remove those allegations and continue with other allegations which have been proven by the complainant. This case also shed light on the importance of judicial precedents as they not only help in determining the law but also help in saving time as the judge may now just look at previous judgements instead of forming his conclusions.

This case also highlights that if not all, some offences do have a particular set of essentials needed to be fulfilled by the accused in order to actually be guilty of that crime. In this case, even though the appellant was accused of cheating in the chargesheet among other offences, it was declared by the court that the appellant is not guilty of cheating since the essential elements required to cheat a person, which are fraudulently or dishonestly inducing money out of someone were absent in the present case. It shows the vitality of a case being proven and the need of judicial precedents.

REFERENCES

This article is written by Anshika Agarwal, student of Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, Delhi an intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.