Criminal Law – Offence under Ss. 420, 406, 294(b), 506(i) r/w S. 34 IPC – Cheating and criminal breach of trust – Ingredients – Absence of inducement or representation – When offence not made out
The FIR alleged that accused No.1 induced the informant to purchase land and received ₹92 lakh towards sale consideration in 2015–2016 but failed to execute the sale deed. The appellant (accused No.2), son of accused No.1, was a minor at that time and had no role in the transaction. Later, in 2022, he purchased the property from accused No.1 after the latter obtained power of attorney from the true owner.
Held, since the appellant neither made any representation nor received any consideration from the complainant, ingredients of Ss. 406, 420 or 34 IPC not satisfied. Mere subsequent purchase of the property by him from his father does not amount to participation in the alleged act of cheating.
— Held, continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process. Discharge under S. 239 CrPC rightly deserved to be granted.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 239 — Discharge of accused — Scope and limits — When permissible
At the stage of considering discharge, the Court must examine whether, taking the allegations as they stand, they disclose ingredients of the alleged offences. When there is no prima facie material to suggest involvement of the accused or existence of mens rea, and when continuation of proceedings would be unjust, discharge must follow.
— Held, both the trial court and the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s discharge application, since the materials disclosed no participation, inducement, or knowledge on his part in the original transaction of 2015–2016.
Held:
Orders of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry (15-3-2024 in Cr.M.P. No.11118/2023 in C.C. No.588/2023) and of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (15-4-2025 in Crl. Rev. No.1430/2024) set aside qua appellant.
Application for discharge under S. 239 CrPC allowed qua appellant.
FIR No.0032 dated 13-10-2022 (CBCID Puducherry) and consequential chargesheet quashed qua appellant.
Appeal allowed.
2025 INSC 1221 Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 12380 OF 2025]
G. PRASAD RAGHAVAN …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
UNION TERRITORY OF PUDUCHERRY …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-original
accused no.2 against the order dated 15.04.2025 rendered
by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal
Revision Case No. 1430 of 2024 by which the Criminal
Revision Case filed by the present appellant has been
dismissed.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as
under:-
(i) The original informant, Ms. Amutha filed FIR being
No.0032 before CBCID Police Station, Puducherry against
the Original Accused No.1 namely Gunasekaran for
SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025
Page 1 of 9
committing an offence punishable under Section 420 of
Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). The said FIR came to
be lodged on 13.10.2022. Mainly, it has been alleged in
the said FIR that the original accused, Gunasekaran
made a representation that he is having a vacant plot and
wanted to sell the same. The informant inspected the
vacant plot and decided to purchase the same and
thereafter on 13.05.2015, an unregistered sale agreement
for purchase of the vacant plot in question was executed.
It was decided to purchase the same for total amount of
Rs. 1,64,10,000/-. The amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was
paid by way of cash and thereafter on 17.02.2016, a sum
of Rs.55,00,000/- was paid to accused No.1. Necessary
endorsement was also made by the accused. Thereafter,
two cheques each for Rs.10,00,000/- were given to the
accused.
(ii)It is further alleged that thereafter it was revealed that
accused was not having any title to sell the said plot and
thereafter when contacted the accused gave inconsistent
reply and assured that he will execute the sale deed in
favour of the informant. It is further alleged that the
SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025
Page 2 of 9
accused received a sum of Rs.92,00,000/- from the
informant, despite which he has refused to register and
execute the sale deed in favour of the informant and
thereby has committed the alleged offence punishable
under Section 420 of the IPC.
(iii) It further transpires from the record that after
investigation, the investigating officer filed the
chargesheet against the original accused as well as the
present appellant, who is the son of the original accused,
for committing offences punishable under Sections 420,
406, 294(b), 506 (i) of IPC read with Section 34 of the
IPC.
(iv) It is alleged in the chargesheet that accused no. 1,
Gunasekaran had obtained the power of Attorney from
the original owners of the property on 03.03.2022 and
executed the sale deed in favour of the present appellant
(accused no. 2), who is the son of the accused No.1 for a
sum of Rs. 60,00,00/-. It is alleged that the present
appellant-accused no.2 had registered the property in
question in his name knowing fully well that accused no.
1, Gunasekaran had not returned the amount of the sale
SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025
Page 3 of 9
consideration received from the informant. It is also
alleged that the accused No.2 (appellant herein) had no
income of his own to purchase the property since he is a
student.
(v) The appellant as well as accused No.1 jointly filed petition
under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
discharge before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate
at Puducherry. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order
dated 15.03.2024 dismissed the said application.
(vi) The present appellant with the accused no. 1 jointly filed
the criminal revision application before the High Court of
Judicature at Madras. However, the High Court has
dismissed the said criminal revision application vide
impugned order and therefore the present appellantoriginal accused no.2 has preferred the present appeal.
4. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned
senior counsel for the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend
that the transaction in question took place in the year 2015
between original accused No. 1 and the informant. Even as
per the case of the informant, the original accused no. 1
SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025
Page 4 of 9
made a representation with regard to the plot in question
and thereafter as alleged by the informant, the particular
amount was given by him to the original accused no. 1. At
the relevant point of time i.e. in the year 2015, the present
appellant was a minor. Thus, no representation was made
by the present appellant to the informant nor any
inducement was given by the present appellant. The
appellant is nowhere connected with the transaction in
question at the relevant point of time.
Thus, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not at all
made out.
6. Learned Counsel would further submit that merely because
the present appellant has purchased the plot in the year
2022 from accused no. 1, it cannot be inferred that the
appellant has committed the alleged offences. Thus, the trial
court ought to have allowed the discharge application filed
by the present appellant. Similarly, the High Court has also
committed an error while not entertaining the criminal
revision application qua the present appellant. Learned
counsel therefore urged that present appeal be allowed by
quashing and setting aside the impugned orders passed by
SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025
Page 5 of 9
the High Court as well as the trial court and thereby allow
the discharge application filed by the present appellant.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent has opposed the present appeal. Learned
counsel has mainly contented that the original accused no.
1 who is the father of the present appellant has sold the plot
in question to the present appellant in the year 2022. When
the property was sold to the present appellant, the appellant
was major and in fact the appellant was a student at the
relevant point of time, despite which he paid the amount of
consideration to the original accused no. 1. Thus, the
investigating officer has filed the chargesheet against both
the accused for committing the alleged offences. It is also
contended that the High Court has rightly observed that
after considering the entire material and the allegation in
the chargesheet and the statement of the witnesses, prima
facie material to proceed with the case against both the
accused are made out and therefore the Court cannot
conduct a roving enquiry to testify the veracity of the
documents while deciding the petition under Section 239 of
SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025
Page 6 of 9
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Counsel therefore
has contended that the present appeal be dismissed.
8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and
having gone through the materials placed on record, it
transpires that the informant has filed the FIR under
Section 420 of IPC against the original accused No. 1 only. If
the allegations levelled in the said FIR is carefully examined,
it would reveal that the transaction between the informant
and the accused no. 1 took place in the year 2015. The
allegation of making representation as well as endorsement
was made against the accused no.1. Further, the payment
was made to the accused no.1 in the year 2015-2016. It is
not in dispute that in the year 2015-2016, the appellant
herein was minor. It is not the case of the informant that
the appellant herein has made any representation or there
was any inducement on the part of the present appellant. It
is not even the case of the informant that he had made the
payment to the present appellant for the transaction with
regard to the plot in question.
9. From the record, it further transpires that now the only
allegation against the appellant herein is that he had
SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025
Page 7 of 9
purchased the plot in question from the original accused no.
1 in the year 2022. Thus, when the transaction took place
between the informant and original accused no. 1 in the
year 2015-2016, the appellant was minor, hence ingredients
of offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the
IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC are not made out qua
appellant. Further, it is not the case of the informant that
the appellant herein has given any threat nor any criminal
intimidation was made by the appellant.
10. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the
present case, we are of the view that there is no material
placed on record from which it can be said that the
appellant herein has committed the alleged offences and
therefore the concerned trial court as well as the High Court
have committed an error while dismissing the discharge
application filed by the present appellant and while
dismissing their criminal revision application filed by the
appellant herein.
11. Accordingly, the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the trial
court in Cr.M.P.No.11118/2023 in CC. No.588/2023 is
hereby quashed and set aside qua appellant. Further, order
SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025
Page 8 of 9
dated 15.04.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras in Criminal Revision Case No.1430/2024 is also
quashed and set aside qua appellant. Consequently, the
application submitted by the appellant under Section 239 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge is allowed qua
the appellant. The proceedings pending pursuant to the FIR
No. 0032 dated 13.10.2022 registered before CBCID PS,
Puducherry and the chargesheet filed pursuant to the said
FIR qua the appellant herein are also quashed and set aside.
Appeal is accordingly allowed.
.......……….…………………….J.
[SANJAY KAROL]
..….....………………………….J.
[VIPUL M. PANCHOLI]
NEW DELHI,
OCTOBER 10, 2025.
SLP (Crl.) NO. 12380 OF 2025
Page 9 of 9
