LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

A.M. MOHAN versus THE STATE REPRESENTED BY SHO AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 722 · Decided: 20-03-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 722 : 2024 INSC 233
A.M. Mohan 
v. 
The State Represented by SHO and Another
(Criminal Appeal No. 1716 of 2024)
20 March 2024
[B.R. Gavai,* Rajesh Bindal and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
FIR registered against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 (appellant) for 
offences punishable u/s.420 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860. High 
Court whether justified in rejecting the petition filed by the appellant 
u/s.482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 420, IPC, if 
attracted qua the appellant.
Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 – s.420 – Ingredients – s.420 when not 
attracted:
Held: For attracting the provision of s.420, IPC, the FIR/complaint 
must show that the ingredients of s.415, IPC are made out – It 
must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses the deception 
of any person; fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person 
to deliver any property to any person; and dishonest intention 
of the accused at the time of making the inducement – In the 
present case, no role of inducement at all has been attributed 
to the appellant – Allegations w.r.t inducement are only against 
accused Nos.1 and 2 – Rather, from the perusal of the FIR and 
the charge-sheet, it would reveal that there was no transaction of 
any nature directly between the appellant and the complainant – 
FIR or the charge-sheet, even if taken at its face value, does not 
disclose the ingredients to attract the provision of s.420, IPC qua 
the appellant – Dishonest inducement is the sine qua non to attract 
the provisions of ss.415 and 420 of IPC and the same is totally 
lacking qua the appellant – In that view of the matter, continuation 
of the criminal proceedings against the appellant would be nothing 
else but amount to abuse of process of law resulting in miscarriage 
of justice – Impugned orders and the FIR alongwith the charge-
sheet filed against the appellant, quashed and set aside. [Paras 
13, 15, 19, 20 and 24]
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
723
A.M. Mohan v. The State Represented by SHO and Another
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Exercise of 
jurisdiction under – Discussed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – FIR registered 
against appellant u/s.420 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 – High 
Court rejected the petition filed by the appellant u/s.482 – 
Present appeal filed – Contention of the respondents that 
since the charge-sheet has been filed, the present appeal is 
liable to be dismissed:
Held: Said contention has no merit – As rightly held in Anand 
Kumar Mohatta and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department 
of Home and Another, [2018] 13 SCR 1028, there is nothing 
in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of the 
power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or 
miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR – High Court 
can exercise jurisdiction u/s.482 CrPC even when the discharge 
application is pending with the trial court – Indeed, it would be a 
travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can 
be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced 
and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet – On 
the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused 
by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a 
charge-sheet after investigation – The power is undoubtedly 
conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court. 
[Paras 21, 23]
Case Law Cited
Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and Another v. Sudha 
Seetharam and Another [2019] 2 SCR 185 : (2019) 
16 SCC 739; Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another v. 
State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Another 
[2018] 13 SCR 1028 : (2019) 11 SCC 706; Haji Iqbal 
alias Bala through S.P.O.A. v. State of U.P. and Others 
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 946 – relied on.
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and Others 
[2006] Suppl. 3 SCR 704 : (2006) 6 SCC 736; G. Sagar 
Suri and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [2000] 1 
SCR 417 : (2000) 2 SCC 636; Archana Rana v. State of 
Uttar Pradesh and Another (2021) 3 SCC 751; Deepak 
Gaba and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 
724
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(2023) 3 SCC 423; Mariam Fasihuddin and Another v. 
State by Adugodi Police Station and Another [2024] 1 
SCR 623 : (2024) SCC OnLine SC 58 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Quashing; Cheating; Deception; Dishonest intention; Dishonest 
inducement; Abuse of process of law; Miscarriage of just

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.