REKHA JAIN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case Type: Criminal Appeal

Date of Judgment: 10-05-2022

Preview image for REKHA JAIN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Full Judgment Text

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2022 Rekha Jain      ..Appellant (S) Versus The State of Karnataka & Anr.                       ..Respondent (S) J U D G M E N T  M. R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment and order dated 15.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 3442/2020, by which, the High Court has dismissed the said   criminal   petition   and   has   refused   to   quash   the FIR/criminal proceedings against petitioners, the original writ petitioners before the High Court have preferred the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.05.10 17:24:46 IST Reason: present appeal.   1 2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by order dated 08.01.2021, the present appeal in respect of petitioner No. 1 (Kamalesh Mulchand Jain) has been dismissed and the notice has been issued in respect of appellant – petitioner No.   2   (Rekha   Jain).   Therefore,   the   present   appeal   is required to be considered qua accused Rekha Jain only. 3. That   respondent   No.   2   herein   –   original   complainant lodged a complaint against one Kamalesh Mulchand Jain (husband   of   Rekha   Jain),   alleging,   inter­alia,   that   by misrepresentation, inducement and with an intention to cheat him, the said Kamalesh Mulchand Jain had taken away 2 kg and 27 grams of gold jewellery. A complaint was registered   as   FIR/Crime   Case   No.   75/2020   dated 13.03.2020 for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). During the course of the investigation, it was found that appellant – Rekha Jain was absconding and   the   gold   jewellery,   taken   away   from   the   original complainant by her husband – Kamalesh Mulchand Jain, was with her, therefore, the investigation was carried out 2 against   her   also,   which   led   to   the   said   Rekha   Jain   to approach   the   High   Court   by   way   of   a   petition   under section 482 of Cr.PC to quash the FIR against her for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. By the impugned order, the   High   Court   refused   to   quash   the   criminal proceedings/FIR, even in so far as the accused – Rekha Jain is concerned. Hence, the present appeal.  4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – accused   –   Rekha   Jain   has   vehemently   submitted   that considering the allegations in the complaint/FIR as they are,   there   are   no   allegations   that   accused   Rekha   Jain induced the complainant to deliver the gold jewellery. It is submitted that the entire allegations can be said to be against Kamalesh Mulchand Jain, who happens to be the husband of the appellant – Rekha Jain. It is submitted that   therefore,   when   there   are   no   allegations   of inducement by present Appellant – Accused Rekha Jain, it cannot be said that the appellant – accused – Rekha Jain has committed any offence as alleged for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.  3 It   is   submitted   that   therefore   the   High   Court   has committed   a   grave   error   in   not   quashing   the   criminal proceedings against the appellant – accused ­ Rekha Jain for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.   5. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Saket Gogia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant.  5.1 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant that the appellant – accused – Rekha Jain is found to be in possession of the gold   jewellery,   which   was   taken   away   from   the complainant. That even the appellant – accused – Rekha Jain was absconding. It is contended that it cannot be said that the appellant has not committed any offence at all. That the appellant – accused may be charged for the other offences of keeping the gold jewellery, which is property obtained   by   her   husband   by   cheating   and   deceiving. Therefore,   it   is   prayed   not   to   quash   the   criminal 4 proceedings/FIR even so far as the appellant – accused ­ Rekha Jain is concerned.     6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused – Rekha Jain   –   the   appellant   has   submitted   that   she   has   been chargesheeted for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and the said accused is shown as accused No. 4.   7. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.  8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the offence alleged against the appellant – accused – Rekha Jain is for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. She has been now chargedsheeted for the said offence. However, considering the allegations in FIR/complaint, it can be seen that the entire   and   all   the   allegations   are   against   the   accused Kamalesh Mulchand Jain. In the complaint/FIR, there are no allegations whatsoever to the effect that the accused ­ Rekha Jain induced the complainant to part with the gold jewellery. Therefore, in the absence of any allegation of inducement by the accused Rekha Jain, she cannot be 5 prosecuted for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. There must be a dishonest inducement by the accused.  As per Section 420 of IPC, whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly   induces   the   person   deceived   to   deliver   any property to any person, can be said to have committed the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, to make out a case against a person for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, there must be a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any property to any other person. In the present case, there is no allegation at all against accused – Rekha Jain of any inducement by her to deceive and to deliver   the   gold   jewellery.   The   allegations   of   dishonest inducement   and   cheating   are   against   her   husband   – accused   –   Kamalesh   Mulchand   Jain.   Therefore, considering the allegations in the FIR/complaint as they are,   and   in   the   absence   of   any   allegation   of   dishonest inducement by Rekha Jain, it cannot be said that she has committed any offence under Section 420 of IPC for which she is now chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has committed   a   grave   error   in   not   quashing   the   criminal 6 proceedings   against   Rekha   Jain   for   the   offence   under Section 420 of IPC. This is a fit case where the High Court could   have   exercised   its   powers   under   Section   482   of Cr.PC   and   to   quash   the   criminal   proceedings   against Rekha Jain for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.      9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds in part. The criminal proceedings against   the   appellant   –   accused   –   Rekha   Jain   for   the offence   under   Section   420   of   IPC   is   hereby   quashed. However, it is clarified that what is quashed is the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 420 of IPC only and not for any other offence(s), if any, committed by the accused – Rekha Jain. The present appeal is limited to the offence under Section 420 of IPC only as at present she is chargesheeted only for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. The present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.           …………………………………J.                   (M. R. SHAH) …………………………………J. New Delhi,   (B.V. NAGARATHNA)           May 10, 2022 7