Rekha Jain vs The State Of Karnataka

Rekha Jain ..Appellant (S)

Versus

The State of Karnataka & Anr. ..Respondent (S)

JUDGMENT

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