Summary
The Court discharged the appellant from a cheating prosecution because the FIR and investigation material alleged only that he accompanied his father when the father assured investors. They disclosed no fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the appellant. The courts below had identified no evidence supplying the missing ingredients of Section 420 IPC.
Issues
- Whether the allegations and material disclosed the ingredients necessary to frame a cheating charge against the appellant.
Provisions considered
- Sections 415 and 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860The reproduced provisions required deception and the relevant dishonest or fraudulent inducement; dishonest intention had to exist when the promise or inducement was made. (¶ 16–21)
Held
- Subsequent failure to honour a promise did not itself establish dishonest intention at inception. The statutory ingredients had to be disclosed against the particular accused. (¶ 18–21)
- The recorded assurances were attributed to the father; mere accompaniment by the appellant did not show his dishonest inducement. The Magistrate identified no supporting allegation or evidence justifying a Section 420 charge. (¶ 20–23)
Result
Appeal allowed; refusal of discharge and the High Court judgment set aside. Appellant discharged under Section 420 IPC in Case No. 545 of 2002.