G.V. RAO versus L.H.V. PRASAD AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 123 · Decided: 06-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.....---
G.V.RAO 
v. 
L.H.V. PRASAD AND ORS. 
MARCH 6, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, J 860o: 
S.415-Cheating-Complainant alleging that he was induced to marry 
a girl of Scheduled Tribe on the misrepresentation that she belonged to forward 
community-High Court quashing the proceedings holding that the section 
relates to property, which in the instant case was not involved and therefore 
FIR was liable to be quashed-Held, High Court erred in interpreting the 
provisions-However, petition dismissed being without merit. 
A 
B 
c 
Matrimonial litigations-Held, should not be encouraged-Parties should 
D 
tenninate such disputes amicably by mutual agreement. 
The petitioner, a member of forward community, filed a complaint 
in the court against the respondents for offences under ss.415, 419, 420 
read with s.34 I.P.C. It was alleged that he was induced to marry respond-
ent No. 4 on the misrepresentation that the respondents belonged to for-
ward community and on this misrepresentation he married respondent 
No. 4; and had he known that the respondents were members of Scheduled 
Tribe, which fact, it was alleged, came to his notice after the marriage, he 
would not have married respondent No. 4. During the investigation the 
respondents filed a petition under s.482 Cr.P.C. The High Court quashed 
the proceedings principally on the ground that s.415 relates to property, 
which, in the instant case was not involved, and, therefore, the FIR was 
liable to be quashed. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition for 
special leave to appeal. 
E 
F 
This Court dismissed the petition on 4.10.1999 observing that rea-
G 
sons would follow. Delivering the judgment with reasons, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court was not correct in its interpretation of 
provisions contained under s.415, IPC. While the first part of the defini-
tion of 'cheating' relates to property; the second part need not necessarily 
related to property and speaks of deception which must be intended not 
H 
123 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000) 2 ~.C.R. 
only to do or omit to do something but also to cause damage or harm to 
complainant in body, mind, reputation or property. Thus so far as the 
second part of s.415 is concerned, it is the doing of an act or omission to do 
an act by the complainant as a result of intentional inducement by the 
accused, which is material. Such inducement should result in the doing of 
an act or omission to do an act as a result of which the person concerned 
should have suffered or was likely to suffer damage or harm in body, mind, 
reputation or property. [128-E; 126-H; 127-F] 
.. 
Jaswantrai Manila[ Akhaney v. State of Bombay, Am (1956) SC575 = 
(1956) Crl.L.J. 1611 = [1956] SCR 483 and Mahadeo Prasad v. State of West 
Bengal, Am (1954) SC 724 = (1954) Cr.L.J. 1806, relied on. · 
Empress v. Sheoram and Another, (1982) 2 AWN 237; Queen-Empress 
v. Ramka Kom Sadhu, ILR (1887) 2 Bombay 59; Queen v. Dabee Singh and 
Others, (1867) Weekly Reporter (Crl.) 55 and Queen v. Puddomonie Boistobee, 
(1866) 5 Weekly Reporter (Crl.) 98, referred to. 
1.2. However, there is no merit in the instant case. Besides, matrimo-
nial litigations should not be encouraged so that parties may ponder over 
their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement 
instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years to conchide 
and in that process parties lose their "young'' days in chasing their "cases'' 
in different courts. [128-H; 129-A] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition 
(Crl.) No. 3164 of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.6.99 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in Crl. P. No. 2445 of 1997. 
Manoj Kumar, Koka S. Kumar, Manoj Kumar Misra and A.S. Bhasme 
for the Petitioner. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. SAGHm AHMAD, J. This Special Leave Petition was dismissed by 
us on 04.10.1999. We, hereinbelow, give our reasons for dismissing the 
Special Leave Petition. 
The petitioner is a Post-Doctoral fellow at Centre for Cellular and 
H 
Molecular Biology, Hyderabad. He invited marriage proposals for himself 
G.V. RAO v. L.H.V. PRASAD [S. SAGIDR AHMAD, J.] 
125 
through advertisement in Deccan Chronicle dated 27th of January, 1994, in 
pursuance of which respondent No.1 approached the petitioner and furnished 
the particulars of respondent No.4 who is his sister. It was represented by 
respondent No.I that res
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.