Summary
The Supreme Court quashed cheating and abetment proceedings against the parents of a man accused of having physical relations with the complainant on a promise of marriage, holding that the complaint disclosed no act of theirs that was illegal, let alone criminal, and that their trial would abuse the process of court. It also ordered deletion of a disparaging High Court remark about the son, who was not a party before it.
Issues
- Whether the complaint disclosed the ingredients of cheating under Section 415 IPC, punishable under Section 417, or abetment under Section 109 IPC, against the parents of the principal accused.
- Whether the High Court could make disparaging observations about the principal accused, who was not a party to the parents' quashing petition.
Provisions considered
- Section 415, Indian Penal Code, 1860Quoted in full; the Court found that the complaint alleged only that the appellants were the son's parents and had once met the complainant, and disclosed no deception or inducement by them, so no offence of cheating was made out against them. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- Sections 417 and 109, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellants were charged with cheating read with abetment; the State itself conceded that they could not be held criminally liable under these provisions, and the Court found no ingredients of any IPC offence against them. (¶¶ 7, 9)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court had dismissed the appellants' petition to quash the chargesheet; the Supreme Court held that continuing the trial against them would be an abuse of process and quashed the proceedings as to them, while disapproving the High Court's remarks about a non-party in that petition. (¶¶ 3, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17)
Held
- Where the complaint shows only that the accused were the parents of the man in a relationship with the complainant and had once met her, with no act or conduct by them that is illegal, much less criminal, no offence of cheating under Section 415 IPC is made out against them. (¶ 9)
- Given the complainant's age (29), her education as a post-graduate and her running her own business, the Court declined to accept that any statement or conduct of the parents led her into the intimate relationship; the main allegations were against the son, who could be proceeded against independently. (¶ 10)
- Protecting persons from vexatious prosecution and an unnecessary trial is a duty of the High Court; where there is no suspicion, let alone grave suspicion, of guilt, the proceedings should be quashed, and trial of the appellants here would be an abuse of process. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- In a quashing petition filed by some accused, the High Court should not make disparaging observations against a person who is not before it and has had no opportunity of hearing; the High Court's remark that the son would harm other women if the petition were allowed was ordered to be deleted from the record. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; proceedings in P.R.C. No. 16/2022 quashed as against the appellants, who were discharged from their bail bonds; observations not to prejudice the case against the son; the offending extract from para 10 of the High Court judgment directed to be deleted.