- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learnedcounsel appearing for the opposite party no.2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 5.12.2007 passed in a complaint bearing C-1 case no.46 of 2007 whereby and whereunder petitioners were summoned under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial for an offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE case of the complainant as it appears from the complaint petition is that Upendra Kumar Singh, husband of the complainant was having Life Insurance Policy bearing no.553716744. During subsistence of the policy, the husband of the complainant died and therefore, claim was laid before the Divisional Office of the Life Insurance Corporation. THE Divisional Office, according to the case of the petitioner, repudiated the claim as there was material suppression of the fact and hence, asked the complainant to represent her case before the Zonal Office. Accordingly, she did approach to the Zonal office but the Zonal office did not do anything in the matter of payment of the amount of the claim put forth by the complainant and therefore, a case was lodged alleging therein that the accused person not only cheated but also =misappropriated the amount. On such allegation, case was registered as C-1 case no.46 of 2007 under Sections 406, 409, 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate after holding enquiry passed an order on 5.12.2007 whereby and whereunder the petitioners were summoned under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for facing trial. That order is under challenge. Mr.Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that accepting the entire allegation made in the complaint to be true, no offence is made out either under Section 406, 409 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code as it is never the case of the complainant that the complaint was ever cheated by the petitioners fraudulently and dishonestly, rather it is a simple case wherein claim laid by the complainant on account of death of her husband whose life was secured under the policy had been repudiated and therefore, the remedy which was available to the complainant lies somewhere else and not by criminal action. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case. In the facts and circumstances, it is to be considered as to whether any offence of cheating or misappropriation is made out ? The offence of cheating has been defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as follows: "Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any persons 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". From its reading it appears that following ingredients should necessarily be there for constituting offence of cheating. (1) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him (2) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any persons, or to consent that any person shall retain any property or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. (3) in cases covered by 2(b) the Act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in bodily or reputation or property. Applying the principle constituting a criminal offence of cheating in context of the allegation it does appear that first element of deception constituting an offence of cheating is lacking as nowhere the allegations made in the complaint do indicate about the complainant being deceived by the petitioners in any manner. At the same time, necessary ingredients for constituting offence under Section 405 punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code are lacking. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of C-1 case no.46 of 2007 including the order dated 5.12.2007 is hereby quashed. In the result, this application is allowed. ;