Holding

Section 415 IPC includes deception causing harm beyond property, so the High Court's interpretation was erroneous, but the petition is dismissed as without merit.

Summary

The petitioner, a forward‑community scientist, married respondent No.4 after being told she belonged to a forward caste, later discovering she was from a Scheduled Tribe. He filed a criminal complaint under IPC sections 415, 419, 420 read with 34, alleging cheating due to the caste misrepresentation. The respondents obtained a quash of the FIR under s.482 CrPC, with the High Court reasoning that s.415 deals only with property and therefore did not apply. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court misinterpreted s.415 and that a prima facie case existed. The Supreme Court held that s.415 comprises two limbs, the second of which covers deception causing harm to body, mind, reputation or property and does not require a property element, thus rejecting the High Court's narrow view. However, the Court dismissed the petition as without merit, emphasizing that matrimonial disputes should not be pursued through protracted litigation. The petition was consequently dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code applies to a case of caste misrepresentation in marriage where no property is involved.
Whether the FIR can be quashed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that Section 415 relates only to property.
Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's order under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Constitution of Indias. 136
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 34, s. 415, s. 419, s. 420

Subjects

CheatingSection 415 IPCCaste misrepresentationMatrimonial litigationFIR quashSection 482 CrPCSupreme CourtSpecial Leave Petition

Judgment

G.V.RAO A
v.
L.H.V. PRASAD AND ORS.

MARCH 6, 2000

[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] B

Indian Penal Code, J860o:

S.415-Cheating-Complainant alleging that he was induced to marry
a girl of Scheduled Tribe on the misrepresentation that she belonged to forward
community-High Court quashing the proceedings holding that the section
c
relates to property, which in the instant case was not involved and therefore
FIR was liable to be quashed-Held, High Court erred in interpreting the
provisions-However, petition dismissed being without merit.

Matrimonial litigations-Held, should not be encouraged-Parties should D
tenninate such disputes amicably by mutual agreement.

The petitioner, a member of forward community, filed a complaint
in the court against the respondents for offences under ss.415, 419, 420
read with s.34 I.P.C. It was alleged that he was induced to marry respond-
ent No. 4 on the misrepresentation that the respondents belonged to for- E
ward community and on this misrepresentation he married respondent
No. 4; and had he known that the respondents were members of Scheduled
Tribe, which fact, it was alleged, came to his notice after the marriage, he
would not have married respondent No. 4. During the investigation the
respondents filed a petition under s.482 Cr.P.C. The High Court quashed
F
.....--- the proceedings principally on the ground that s.415 relates to property,
which, in the instant case was not involved, and, therefore, the FIR was
liable to be quashed. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition for
special leave to appeal.

This Court dismissed the petition on 4.10.1999 observing that rea- G
sons would follow. Delivering the judgment with reasons, this Court

HELD: 1.1. The High Court was not correct in its interpretation of
provisions contained under s.415, IPC. While the first part of the defini-
tion of 'cheating' relates to property; the second part need not necessarily
related to property and speaks of deception which must be intended not H
123
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) 2 ~.C.R.
A only to do or omit to do something but also to cause damage or harm to
complainant in body, mind, reputation or property. Thus so far as the
second part of s.415 is concerned, it is the doing of an act or omission to do
an act by the complainant as a result of intentional inducement by the
accused, which is material. Such inducement should result in the doing of
an act or omission to do an act as a result of which the person concerned
B
should have suffered or was likely to suffer damage or harm in body, mind,

.
reputation or property. [128-E; 126-H; 127-F]

Jaswantrai Manila[ Akhaney v. State of Bombay, Am (1956) SC575 =
(1956) Crl.L.J. 1611 =[1956] SCR 483 and Mahadeo Prasad v. State of West
c Bengal, Am (1954) SC 724 = (1954) Cr.L.J. 1806, relied on. ·

Empress v. Sheoram and Another, (1982) 2 AWN 237; Queen-Empress
v. Ramka Kom Sadhu, ILR (1887) 2 Bombay 59; Queen v. Dabee Singh and
Others, (1867) Weekly Reporter (Crl.) 55 and Queen v. Puddomonie Boistobee,
(1866) 5 Weekly Reporter (Crl.) 98, referred to.
D
1.2. However, there is no merit in the instant case. Besides, matrimo-
nial litigations should not be encouraged so that parties may ponder over
their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement
instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years to conchide
and in that process parties lose their "young'' days in chasing their "cases''
E in different courts. [128-H; 129-A]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) No. 3164 of 1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.6.99 of the Andhra Pradesh
F High Court in Crl. P. No. 2445 of 1997.

Manoj Kumar, Koka S. Kumar, Manoj Kumar Misra and A.S. Bhasme
for the Petitioner.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
S. SAGHm AHMAD, J. This Special Leave Petition was dismissed by
us on 04.10.1999. We, hereinbelow, give our reasons for dismissing the
Special Leave Petition.

The petitioner is a Post-Doctoral fellow at Centre for Cellular and
H Molecular Biology, Hyderabad. He invited marriage proposals for himself
G.V. RAO v. L.H.V. PRASAD [S. SAGIDR AHMAD, J.] 125
through advertisement in Deccan Chronicle dated 27th of January, 1994, in A
pursuance of which respondent No.1 approached the petitioner and furnished
the particulars of respondent No.4 who is his sister. It was represented by
respondent No.I that respondent No.4 was born on 29th of June, 1966 and
they belonged to Thurupukapu Community. The petitioner himself gave out
that he belonged to Gujala Balija Community which was a forward commu-
B
nity and. therefore, he wanted a wife from a forward con:imunity. The parents
of respondent No.4, who are respondents 2 to 3 in this petition, met the
parents of the petitioner and they talked and the marriage proposal was
fmalised. Betrothel ceremony took place on 27th of June, 1994 and later the
marriage took place on 19.8.94. On 4th of March, 1997, the petitioner,
allegedly, crune to know that respondents 1 to 4 belonged to Kondakapu c
Community, which was a Scheduled Tribe, and it was then that he realised
thayby misrepresenting themselves as members of Thurupukapu Community,
they had lured the petitioner into wedlock, for which the petitioner would nc\tI
have agreed at all, had he known that the respondents did not belong t6
Thurupukapu Community but belonged to Kondakapu Community. It was in
D
these circumstances that he filed a complaint in the Court on 10.7.1996 under
Sections 415, 419, 420 read with Section 34 IPC which was referred to
Station House Officer, Police Station Alwal, Rangareddy District, Andhra
Pradesh for investigation and report. Since the investigation was considerably
delayed. the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.11477of1997 in the High Court
for a Writ of Mandrunus directing the Station House Officer to expedite the E
investigation. While the Writ Petition was pending, an affidavit was filed by
the St.ation House Officer that after completing the investigation, he had
submitted the chargesheet in the Court on 28.5.1997 against the respondents.
The respondents, however, approached the High Court through a petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of the FIR which was allowed, F
by the impugned judgment and it is in these circumstances that this petition
has been filed in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioI).er has contended
that the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint (FIR) as a
chargesheet had already been submitted after the investigation and a prima
facie case was made out against the respondents. He has further contended
that the High Court was wrong in its interpretation of Section 415 IPC . G

. Before considering the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner on merits, we may state another important fact that tl1e petitioner
himself is facing a case under Section 498-A IPC instituted by the respond-
ents against him. It is stated in the petition that this pro~ecution was launched H

I
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A by the respondents against the petitioner as a counter-blast to the notice dated
13.6.1995 which was issued by him to respondent No.l as to why he had
misrepresented about his caste and why had he represented to the petitioner
that he belonged to Thurupukapu Community instead of Kondakapu Commu-
nity.

B
CHEATING is defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code which·
provides as under:-

"415. Cheating. - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to
c any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property,
or intentionally induces the person so deceived 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, is said to "cheat".
D
Explanation.-A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within
the meaning of this section."

The High Court quashed the proceedings principally on the ground that
Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offences agamst
E properties and, therefore, Section 415 must also necessarily relate to the
property which, in the instant case, is not involved and, consequently, the FIR
was liable to be quashed. The broad proposition on which the High Court
proceeded is not correct. While the first part of the defition relates to property,
the second part need not necessarily relate to property. The second part is
F reproduced below:-

" ......... intentionally induces the person so deceived 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, is said to
G "cheat"."

This part speaks of intentional deception which must be intended not
only to induce the person deceived to do or omit to do something but also
to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
H The intentional deception presupposes the existence of a dominant motive of
G.V. RAO v. L.H.V. PRASAD [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 127
the person making the inducement. Such inducement should have led the. A
person deceived or induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not
have done or omitted to do if he were not deceived. The further requirement
is that such act or omission should have caused damage or harm to body,
mind, reputation or property.

B
As mentioned above, Section 415 has two parts. While in the first part,
the person must "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" induce the complainant to
deliver any property; in the second part, the person should intentionally
induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. That is to say, in the first
part, inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent. In the second part, the
inducement should be intentional. As observed by this Court in Jasw<intrai c
Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay, AIR (1956) SC 575 = 1956 Crl.L.J.
16fl = [1956] SCR 483, a gui~ty intention is an essential ingredient of the
offence of cheating. In order, therefore, to secure conviction of a person for
the offence of cheating, "mens rea" on the part of that person, must be
established. It was also observed in Mahadeo Prasad v. State of West Bengal, D
AIR 1954 SC 724 = 1954 Cr.L.J. 1806, that in order to constitute the offence
of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when
the inducement was offered.

Thus, so far as second part of Section 415 is concerned, "property", at
no stage, is involved. Here it is the doing of an act or omission to do an act E
by the complainant, as a result of intentional inducement by the accused,
which is material. Such inducement should result in the doing of an act or
omission to do an act as a result of which the person concerned should have
suffered or was likely to suffer damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or
property. In an old decision of the Allahabad High Court in Empress v. F
Sheoram and another, (1882) 2 AWN 237, it was held by Mahmood, J.:-

"That to palm off a young woman as belonging to a caste different
to the one to which she really belongs, with the object of obtaining
money, amounts to the offence of cheating by personation as defmed
in s.416 of the Indian Penal Code, which must be read in the light G
of the preceding, s.415."

In an another old decision in Queen-Empress v. Ramka Kom Sadhu,
ILR (1887) 2 Bombay 59, it was held that a prostitute may be charged for
cheating under Section 417 if the intercourse was induced by any misrep- H
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 2 S.C.It
A resentation on her part that she did not suffer from syphilis.

In Queen v. Dabee Singh and others, (1867) Weekly Reporter (Crl.)
55, the Calcutta High Court convicted a person under Section 417 who had
brought two girls and palmed them off as women of a muc~ higher caste
than they really were and married to two Rajputs after receiving usual bonus.
B
It was further held that the two Rajputs who married the two girls on the
faith that they were marrying women of their own caste and status, were
fraudulently and dishonestly induced by deception to do a thing (that is to
say, to marry women of a caste wholly prohibited to them) which but for
the deception practised upon them by the accused, they would have omitted
c to do. In another case which was almost similar to the one mentioned above,
namely, Queen v. Puddomonie Boistobee, (1866) 5 Weekly Reporter (Crl.)
98, a person was induced to part with his money and to contract marriage
under the false impression that the girl he was marrying was a Brahminee.
The person who induced the complainant into marrying that girl was held
D Jiable for punishment under Section 417 IPC.

Having regard to the above discussion, the High Court, as we have
already observed earlier, was not correct in its interpretation of the provisions
contained under Section 415 IPC but the important question for our
consideration is that, should we, having regard to the facts of this case,
E interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution.

There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times.
The marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable
the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little
F matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious propor-
tions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family
are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and
brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as
accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not
be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the
G parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably
by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes
years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose' their "young"
days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.

H The petitioner himself is a Scientist at the Centre for DNA Finger
-~

G.V. RAO v. L.H.V. PRASAD [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 129
Printing & Diagnostics, Hyderabad which is a prestigious Institution of the A
country. In this capacity, he can be reasonably presumed to be aware of the
bio-diversity at the Cellular and Molecular level amongst human beings
without the "caste" having any role in the field of Human Biotechnology.

It was for these reasons that the Petition, being without merit, was
dismissed on October 4, 1999. B

R.P. Petition dismissed.