The Supreme Court allowed an appeal of an accused in a case of cheating after noting that it was not the case of the informant that the accused had made any representation or that there was any inducement on his part.

The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the appellant, the original accused, against the order rendered by the Madras High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Case filed by the appellant.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi noted, “If the allegations levelled in the said FIR is carefully examined, it would reveal that the transaction between the informant and the accused no.1 took place in the year 2015. The allegation of making representation as well as endorsement was made against the accused no.1. Further, the payment was made to the accused no.1 in the year 2015-2016. It is not in dispute that in the year 2015-2016, the appellant herein was minor. It is not the case of the informant that the appellant herein has made any representation or there was any inducement on the part of the present appellant. It is not even the case of the informant that he had made the payment to the present appellant for the transaction with regard to the plot in question.”

Senior Advocate A. Sirajudeen represented the Appellant, while AOR Aravindh S. represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The original informant filed an FIR against the first Original Accused Gunasekaran for committing an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was alleged in the FIR that the original accused made a representation that he had a vacant plot which he wanted to sell. The informant inspected the vacant plot and decided to purchase the same, and thereafter, an unregistered sale agreement for the purchase of the vacant plot in question was executed. It was decided to purchase the same for the total amount of Rs 1,64,10,000.

The accused was paid certain sum and later it was revealed that the accused was not having any title to sell the said plot. It was further alleged that the accused received a sum of Rs 92,00,000 from the informant, despite which he has refused to register and execute the sale deed in favour of the informant and thereby had committed the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. The investigating officer filed the chargesheet against the original accused as well as the present appellant, who is the son of the original accused, for committing offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 294(b), 506 (i) of IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC.It was alleged in the chargesheet that the first accused had obtained the power of Attorney from the original owners of the property and executed the sale deed in favour of the present appellant (second accused), who is the son of the first accused No.1 for a sum of Rs 60,00,00.

The appellant as well as the first accused jointly filed a petition under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge before the Chief Judicial Magistrate but the same was dismissed.The present appellant with the first accused jointly filed the criminal revision application before the High Court but the same was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that when the transaction took place between the informant and the first original accused in the year 2015-2016, the appellant was a minor, hence the ingredients of offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC were not made out qua appellant. Further, it was not the case of the informant that the appellant had given any threat, nor any criminal intimidation made by the appellant.

“Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that there is no material placed on record from which it can be said that the appellant herein has committed the alleged offences and therefore the concerned trial court as well as the High Court have committed an error while dismissing the discharge application filed by the present appellant and while dismissing their criminal revision application filed by the appellant herein”, it held.

Thus, quashing the order of the High Court, the Bench allowed the application submitted by the appellant under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge qua the appellant. Allowing the appeal, the Bench held, “The proceedings pending pursuant to the FIR No. 0032 dated 13.10.2022 registered before CBCID PS, Puducherry and the chargesheet filed pursuant to the said FIR qua the appellant herein are also quashed and set aside.”

Cause Title: G. Prasad Raghavan v. Union Territory of Puducherry (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1221)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate A. Sirajudeen, AOR Naresh Kumar, Advocate Shaik Soni Ahamed

Respondent: AOR Aravindh S., Advocate Aman Gautam

Click here to read/download Judgment



Justice Sanjay KarolJustice Vipul Pancholi

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.