SAMIR SA.HAY @ SAMEER SAHAY versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2017] 9 S.C.R. 731 · Decided: 25-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 9 S.C.R. 731 
SAMIR SA.HAY @ SAMEER SAHAY 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER 
(CriminalAppealNo.1541 of2017) 
AUGUST 25, 2017 
[A.K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.I 
Penal Code, 1860 -s.420 - FIR by Respondent No.2 against 
A 
B 
the appellant and his father uls.420 alleging that he suffered loss 
due to false assurance given to him to invest money and get double C 
the amount so invested, in a company wherein appellant'.~ father 
was Branch Manager - However. no such repayment was made to 
Respondent No.2 - Chargesheet filed uls.420 - Application filed 
by appellant for discharge before Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), 
dismissed - Criminal Revision filed by appellant dismissed by High 
Court - On appeal, held: Jn the present case ingredients of s.420 D 
were not made out so as to frame any charge uls.420 against the 
appellant - Even in the FIR, allegation of making assurance was 
made against the father of the appellant and not against the 
appellant - The only allegation made against the appellant was 
that he accompanied his father - There was no allegatiOn that the 
E 
appellant fraudulently or dishonestly induced the Respondent No.2 
to deposit money - Order of CJM and the judgment of High Court 
are set aside - Appellant shall stand discharged from the charges ul 
s.420. 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.415. - Charge under. for cheatin'g -
F 
Ingredients.for establishing such charge - Held: The inducement 
must be fraudulent and dishonest which depends upon the intention 
of the accused at the time of inducemef!t. 
· 
,, 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.420 - Charge unde1; for cheating and 
dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Ingredients for 
establishing such charge - Held: it is necessary to show that a 
G 
person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making 
the promise. 
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others v. State of 
Bihar and another 2000 (4) SCC 168: (2000[ 2 SCR 
731 
H 
732 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
859; Dalip Kaur and others v. Jagnar Singh and 
another 2009 (14) SCC 696 : (2009) 10 SCR 264 ; 
Kera/a v. A. Pareed Pillai 1972 (3) SCC 661 - relied 
on. -
B 
c 
D 
Arun Bhandari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 
2013 (2) SCC ~01 : (20131 3 SCR 961- referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[2000) 2 SCR 859 
relied on 
Para 18 
[20091 10 SCR 264 
relied on 
Para 19 
(2013) 3 SCR 961 
referred to 
Para 21 
1912 (3) sec 661 
relied on 
Para 21 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1541 of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2016 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 724 of2007. 
Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv., Braj Kishore Mishra, Divyanshu Sahay, 
E Amit Bhagat, Advs. for the Appellant. 
D.K. Singh, AAG, Ms. Komal Mudhra, Saurabh Agrawal, 
Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Alok Kumar Pandey, Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
F 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of Allahabad 
High Court dated 21.10.2016 in Crinlinal Revision No. 724 of 2007 
G dismissing the criminal revision filed by the appellant. The criminal revision 
was filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 28.02.2007 passed 
by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur by which order Chief Judicial 
Magistrate rejected the application of the appellant for discharge in 
Criminal Case No. 545 of2002 under Section 420 IPC. 
H 
SAMIR SAHAY @ SAMEER SAHAY v. STATE OF lJ.P. 
733 
AND ANOTHER [ASHOK BHlJSHAN, J.] 
3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are: 
A 
. 
The Company, namely, Mis. Aneja Consultancy (hereinafter 
referred to as 'the Company') was founded in the year 1984 by one 
I.J. Aneja as Chairman. Father of the appellant, Major P.C. Sahay (Retd.) 
joined the Company as Branch Manager at District Fatehpur. Several 
persons including appellant as well as respondent No.2 deposited different 
B 
amounts in the Company. Respondent No.2 and his wife deposited total 
amount ofRs.86,000/- ill the Company in June/July, 1987. The owner/ 
Proprietor of the Company on 20.06.1996 made a public declaration that 
the owner would bear the full liability and responsibility of all deposits 
made by various investors across the country and employees and staff C 
of the Company have no personal liabilities to repay to the investors. 
The Company faced a financial trouble, cash/liquidity crunch and was 
unable to make repayment of the money of the investors. Respondent 
No.2 lodged First Informat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.