- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Prema Singh v. State Of Bihar
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner challenged the order dated 18-4-98 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj in Trial No. 119/98, which rejected the petitioner's application for discharge in a criminal case under sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose from an FIR filed by the Postal Department alleging that the petitioner signed and purchased National Savings Certificates (NSCs) worth Rs. 1,66,000, which were issued in the name of her daughter who had died. Upon maturity, the petitioner allegedly signed in her deceased daughter's name to collect the cash, which was then reinvested in Kisan Vikas Patra in the name of another person.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner’s act of purchasing NSCs in the name of her deceased daughter and subsequently collecting the maturity proceeds under her daughter's name constitutes an offence under sections 419 (cheating by personation) and 420 (cheating) of the IPC.
- Whether the absence of loss or injury to the Postal Department negates the offence of cheating or cheating by impersonation.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to discharge from the criminal proceedings at the stage of application for discharge.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The Postal Department did not suffer any loss as a result of the petitioner’s actions.
- The petitioner was the actual investor and entitled to receive the maturity amount, although she used her deceased daughter's name for purchase.
- The petitioner did not follow the proper legal procedure to claim the money in her name after her daughter's death, but this procedural lapse does not amount to cheating.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Vimla v. Delhi Administration, where the Court held that to establish cheating, both deceit and injury to the deceived party must be proved. While deceit may exist, injury was absent in that case and similarly here.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Vimla v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572 | To establish cheating under IPC sections 467 and 468, both deceit and injury to the person deceived must be proved. | The Court applied this principle by analogizing that although the petitioner may have practiced deceit by using her deceased daughter's name, there was no loss or injury to the Postal Department, and hence no offence under sections 419 or 420 IPC was made out. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the allegations against the petitioner under sections 419 and 420 IPC, which require proof of cheating by personation and cheating respectively. The Court noted that the petitioner had indeed used her deceased daughter's name in purchasing NSCs and collecting the maturity amount. However, crucially, the Postal Department did not suffer any loss or injury as the investment was made by the petitioner herself and the maturity proceeds were effectively her entitlement. The Court emphasized the principle established in the Supreme Court judgment of Vimla v. Delhi Administration that both deceit and injury must be present to constitute cheating. While deceit may have occurred, the absence of injury to the Postal Department meant the essential ingredients of the offence were lacking. Consequently, the Court found no ground to sustain the criminal charges and thus allowed the petition for discharge.
Holding and Implications
The petition for discharge is allowed and the impugned order refusing discharge is set aside.
The petitioner is discharged from the criminal proceedings in Trial No. 119/98 arising out of Gopalganj PS case No. 201/1993 (G.R No. 1034/93). This decision directly affects the parties by terminating the criminal prosecution against the petitioner at this stage. The Court did not establish any new precedent beyond applying the established principle that cheating requires both deceit and injury.
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 18-4-98 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj in Trial No. 119/98 whereby he has rejected petitioner's application for discharge in a case u/s 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case was lodged through a FIR by Postal Department alleging that it is the petitioner who signed and purchased the NSCs (National Savings Certificates) worth Rs. 1,66,000/- but the 20 certificates were got issued in the name of her daughter who subsequently died and on maturity the petitioner again signed in the name of her daughter to collect cash which were reinvested in Kisan Vikas Patra in the name of some other person.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Postal Department has not been put to any loss and hence, the offence of cheating or cheating by impersonation is not at all attracted in this case. It was highlighted that admittedly the investment was made by the petitioner and she was entitled to get the money but apparently since she had used the name of her daughter for purchase, she did not take recourse to the proper course of obtaining legal permission to claim the invested money as that of her daughter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Vimla v. Dehli Administration reported in AIR 1963 SC 1572. in that case the offence was under sections 467, 468 of the IPC and the allegation was that the accused had purchased a motor vehicle in the name of her daughter who was a minor and had got it insured in the name of the minor daughter and when the vehicle met with accident, the insurance claim was also made by the accused in the name of her daughter. In those circumstances, the Apex Court held that in order to prove the case of defraud two elements were required to be proved-deceit and injury to person deceived. It was held that deceit may be present but there was no injury to person deceived. In the present case also deceit may have been practiced by the petitioner by using the name of her daughter in purchasing the NSCs but there was no loss or injury to the Postal Department. Hence, no offence u/s 419 or 420 of the IPC can be made out against the petitioner.
In view of aforesaid facts, this application is allowed and the impugned order refusing discharge is set aside. As a result the petitioner shall stand discharged from the criminal proceedings relating to Trial No. 119/98 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Gopalganj arising out of Gopalganj PS case No. 201/1993 (G.R No. 1034/93).
Alert