Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a criminal revision application challenging an order dated 10th April 1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalwan, which allowed the discharge application of the respondents (accused) under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The respondents were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by Sahebrao Patil, Deputy Education Officer, Nashik, alleging that the respondents had started a D.Ed. college named Kailaswasi Somji Laxman Aher Adyapak Vidyalaya in June/July 1991 without prior permission or sanction from the Government. It was further alleged that they collected huge amounts from students and thereby cheated the public. The State relied on a Circular dated 9th August 1991 issued by the State Government directing officers to ensure that unauthorised D.Ed. colleges are not opened and to lodge police complaints. The respondents were informed to close the college but did not comply. The learned APP argued that the discharge was erroneous as the circular and the fact of running an unauthorised college constituted cheating. The respondents' counsel supported the discharge order. The High Court examined the essential ingredients of cheating under Sections 418 and 420 IPC, which require dishonest inducement from the very beginning. The court noted that the FIR did not allege that the respondents had no intention to start the college or that they made false representations at the time of inception. The circular was issued after the college had already started. The court held that merely running an unauthorised college and collecting fees does not automatically amount to cheating. There was no prima facie case to proceed against the respondents. The revision application was dismissed, and the discharge order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge under Section 245 - Prima Facie Case - The court examined whether the Magistrate correctly discharged the accused for offences under Sections 418 and 420 IPC. The High Court held that the essential ingredient of cheating is dishonest inducement at the time of inception. Since the FIR only alleged that the college was started without permission and fees were collected, but there was no allegation that the accused had no intention to start the college or that they made false representations at the outset, the discharge was proper. The circular relied upon was issued after the college started. (Paras 1-5) B) Indian Penal Code - Sections 418 and 420 - Cheating - Essential Ingredients - For an offence of cheating, the accused must have dishonest intention from the very beginning. The mere fact that the college was unauthorised and later closed does not prove cheating. The court noted that the respondents had started the college and collected fees, but there was no material to show that they intended to cheat the students at the time of admission. The discharge was upheld. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents accused of running an unauthorised D.Ed. college and collecting fees from students can be discharged under Section 245 CrPC for offences under Sections 418 and 420 IPC when there is no evidence of dishonest intention at the time of inception.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application and upheld the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalwan, discharging the respondents under Section 245 CrPC.
Law Points
- Cheating requires dishonest inducement from inception
- mere running of unauthorised college without permission does not constitute cheating
- discharge under Section 245 CrPC is proper when no prima facie case exists
