Rekha Jain vs The State of Karnataka & Anr. Case

Rekha Jain vs The State of Karnataka & Anr. Case

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

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

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