Ravichandran vs Mariyammal

Janarthanam,, J.—Ravinchandran (petitioner) is the accused in C.C. No. 471 of 1986 on the file of Judicial II Class Magistrate, Sirkali.

The succinct facts leading to the filing of the petition are :- Mariyammal, respondent herein, is unmarried. The respondent is living with her

parents at Kattunaicken street, Vaitheeswarnkoil. Her father is owing a store dealing with articles required for the purpose of pooja to deities.

Opposite to the shop, one Ravinchandran, the petitioner/accused is also owning - a shop transacting the same business. The respondent used to

assist her brother in the shop. In that process, she came into contact with the petitioner and in due course of time, a bondage of love got

solemnised between them. They were moving like that for about 3 years. It is alleged that the petitioner made persistent efforts to enjoy her blissful

company, even prior to their marriage. She appeared to have been evading such request all along. On 18-1-1985 at about 9:00 a.m. the petitioner

was said to have made a representation, in the shape of promise that he would marry her in due course and made her accept his request of sharing

bed together, at the garden situate behind Samiyar Madam. Only believing on such representation, she is said to have complied with his request.

Consequently, she got conceived and the matter became known to one and all. A panchayat was said to have been convened to amicably settle

the dispute between them. It was suggested by the panchayatdars that the petitioner should give 100 kilos of land in favour of the respondent

besides giving her Rs. 3,000/- in lieu of her terminating the pregnancy and marrying some one of her choice. To this course, she was not said to be

amenable. The petitioner was also said to have taken a different attitude and refused to marry her. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint before the

police. That was after all a futile exercise. Consequently; she preferred a complaint before the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Sirkali, which was taken

on file in the aforesaid Calendar Case, against the petitioner/accused for the alleged offence under S. 417, I.P.C.

On receipt of process, the petitioner appeared before the Court below and engaged a counsel of his choice. The respondent proof of her case

examined 8 witnesses and the Court below framed a charge against the petitioner for the offence under S. 417, I.P.C. It is only at this stage, the

petitioner has come forward with the present action, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the Criminal Proceedings initiated in

this case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even assuming that all the allegations as mentioned in the plaint are taken to be the truth and

nothing but the truth, even then, no offence whatever, much less an offence under S. 417, I.P.C. could be said to have been committed by him and

in this view of the matter the prosecution has rightly to be quashed look, stock and barrel.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would, however, repel such submissions.

Section 415, I.P.C. requires -

(1) Deception of any person.

(2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person

i) to deliver any property to any person or

ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property, or

(3) Intentionally inducing that person 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.

Deception of any person is common to the second and the third requirements of the section as stated above. Second and third requirements are

alternative to each other and this is made significantly clear, by use of disjunctive conjunction ''or''. Therefore it goes without saying that the

definition of the offence of cheating, embraces some cases in which no transfer of property is occasioned by the deception and some in which no

transfer occurs. For these cases, a general provisions is made in S. 417 of Code. For the cases in which property is transferred, a more specific

provisions is made by S. 420. But the offence of cheating of any person by delivery of property is punishable under either of the section. But where

the case appears to be of a serious nature, step is normally taken under S. 420, I.P.C. In this view of the matter, the contention of learned counsel

for the petitioner that since the offence of cheating figuring in Chapter XVII, relates to property offences, the case on hand, cannot at all be said to

be coming within the purview of S. 417, I.P.C. cannot at all be countenanced.

The averments in the complaint, do prima facie, point out false representation said to have been made by the petitioner, in the sense of himself

making a promise to marry her, and believing such a promise, the respondent succumbed to his carnal desire, in the sense of sharing her bed with

him at his request. But for the representation so made and the deception practiced on her, she would not have been a party for sharing her bed

with the petitioner, on the relevant date, which is said to have resulted in her becoming pregnant. The allegations as stated in the complaint do

prima facie, establish an offence under S. 417, I.P.C. requiring him to undergo the ordeal of trial. Further, the Court below has already examined 8

witnesses after taking the complaint of file with subjective satisfaction that a prima facie case had been established against the petitioner.

As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed.