LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/rekha-jain-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-anr-20220510/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Rekha Jain vs The State of Karnataka & Anr.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
10 May 2022
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 749 of 2022
Result
Partly allowed
Bench
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
Citation
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 558 : 2022 INSC 549
Supreme Court Reports [2022] 3 S.C.R. 558 : 2022 INSC 549
Headnote

Penal Code, 1860: s. 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property – Necessary ingredient of s. 420 – Held: To make out a case against a person for the offence u/s. 420, there must be a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any property to any other person – On facts, no allegation at all against accused-appellant of any inducement by her to deceive and to deliver the gold jewellery – Allegations of dishonest inducement and cheating against her husband – Thus, it cannot be said that she has committed any offence u/s. 420 for which she is chargesheeted – Thus, the High Court erred in not quashing the criminal proceedings against appellant – In view thereof, the criminal proceedings against the appellant for the offence u/s. 420 is quashed – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : As per Section 420 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 IPC. Therefore, to make out a case against a person for the offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any property to any other person. In the instant case, there is no allegation at all against accused-appellant 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. Therefore, considering the allegations in the FIR/complaint as they are, and in the absence of any allegation of dishonest inducement by appellant, it cannot be said that she has committed any offence under Section 420 IPC for which she is now chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has committed a grave error in not quashing the criminal proceedings against appellant for the offence under Section 420 IPC. This is a fit case where the High Court could have exercised its powers under Section

482 Cr.PC and to quash the criminal proceedings against appellant for the offence under Section 420 IPC. In view thereof, the criminal proceedings against the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 420 IPC is quashed. However, it is clarified that what is quashed is the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section

Read the full headnote (1 more paragraph)

420 IPC only and not for any other offence(s), if any, committed by the accused. [Para 8, 9][561-D-H; 562-A-B]

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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. 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 (Kama
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →