DATE: 11/07/2025
COURT: High Court of Jammu, Kashmir and
Ladakh
BENCH: Justice Sanjay Dhar
FACTS:
According to the allegations made in the
impugned complaint, the Petitioner purportedly introduced himself as a worker
of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and, in May 2020, approached the Respondent
with an offer to secure employment for his unemployed relatives. The Petitioner
allegedly assured the Respondent that appointments as Class IV employees in
various Central Government departments would be made under a scheme meant for
party workers. Based on this assurance, between May and September 2020, the Respondent
and his relatives allegedly handed over a total of Rs.18,58,000 to the Petitioner,
with proper receipts being issued. Additionally, a further amount of Rs.20,000
was stated to have been transferred to the Petitioner’s bank account by the
Respondent. The complaint claims that, despite the
passage of two years, neither the Respondent nor any of his relatives were
provided with employment, and thus, they were allegedly cheated by the
Petitioner.
Upon recording the preliminary evidence of
the complainant, the Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the matter and, being
satisfied that a prima facie case was made out, issued process against the
Petitioner for offences under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Petitioner has challenged the
complaint, arguing that the dispute arises out of a purely financial
transaction and has been wrongly given a criminal dimension by the Respondent.
It was further contended that the allegations do not satisfy the ingredients
necessary to establish an offence of cheating. The Petitioner also objected to
the procedural route adopted by the Respondent, stating that instead of
following the procedure under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.P.C.) and approaching the police for registration of a First Information
Report (FIR), the Respondent directly filed a complaint before the Magistrate.
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted that the Magistrate was obligated to
conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. before issuing process, which
was not done in this case.
ISSUES:
The primary issues in this case were
whether the allegations made by the complainant against the Petitioner
constitute a criminal offence, particularly under Sections 420 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), or whether they merely reflect a civil financial
dispute. The Petitioner also questioned the procedural validity of the
complaint, arguing that the complainant should have approached the police under
Section 154 Cr.P.C. instead of filing a private complaint before the
Magistrate, and further contended that the Magistrate failed to hold a
mandatory inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before issuing process. Lastly, the
Petitioner claimed that the trial Magistrate had not applied his mind and had
acted mechanically while taking cognizance and issuing process.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Court dismissed the petition, holding
that the complaint prima facie disclosed the commission of offences under
Sections 420 and 506 IPC. It found no procedural irregularity in the
complainant approaching the Magistrate directly, nor in the Magistrate's
decision to issue process without a preliminary inquiry under Section 202
Cr.P.C. The Court also rejected the argument regarding non-application of mind,
holding that the Magistrate’s order demonstrated adequate judicial
consideration.
The Court observed that the allegations
made in the complaint went beyond a mere financial dispute and amounted to a
prima facie case of cheating. The complainant had accused the Petitioner of
fraudulently representing himself as a BJP worker who could secure government
jobs for the complainant's relatives, and on that basis, had allegedly
collected a substantial sum of Rs.18,58,000 along with a further bank transfer of Rs.20,000.
The Court noted that despite the lapse of two years,
neither the complainant nor his relatives received any appointment, and the
Petitioner allegedly issued threats when asked for a refund. These facts, the
Court held, clearly suggested deception and inducement, key ingredients of an
offence under Section 420 IPC. Thus, the Court dismissed the Petitioner’s
argument that the matter was civil in nature, finding instead that it involved
elements of fraud and misrepresentation.
Regarding procedural contentions,
the Court clarified that the complainant had the legal discretion to file a
private complaint before the Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C., even in
cases involving cognizable offences. There is no mandatory requirement to first
approach the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. On the issue of inquiry under
Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Court explained that such an inquiry is warranted only
when the Magistrate is uncertain about the sufficiency of grounds to proceed.
However, in the present case, the allegations and the preliminary evidence
recorded were deemed adequate to take cognizance without postponing the
issuance of process. The Court also refuted the claim that the Magistrate acted
mechanically, noting that the order dated 17.07.2023 referred to the evidence
and complaint content, demonstrating that the Magistrate had applied his mind
while taking cognizance.
ANALYSIS:
This case underscores the judiciary's
approach to distinguishing between civil disputes and criminal conduct,
particularly in matters involving alleged deception for monetary gain. The
Court rightly identified that the core issue was not a mere financial
disagreement but a serious allegation of cheating and fraud. The Petitioner
allegedly made false representations about being a BJP worker capable of
securing government jobs in exchange for money actions that, if proven, clearly
fulfill the ingredients of Section 420 IPC. The Court's refusal to accept the
Petitioner's argument that this was a civil transaction reflects the judicial
stance that where inducement and dishonest intent are alleged at the outset of
a transaction, the matter falls within the criminal realm.
Additionally, the Court offered important
clarification on procedural rights and judicial discretion. It reaffirmed that
a complainant has the legal option to either approach the police under Section
154 Cr.P.C. or file a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., regardless
of whether the alleged offence is cognizable. This flexibility is vital to
ensure access to justice. The Court also addressed the claim regarding Section
202 Cr.P.C., explaining that a Magistrate is only required to conduct an inquiry
when there is doubt about proceeding. In this case, the evidence was found
sufficient to issue process without such an inquiry. The Court emphasized that
the Magistrate's order demonstrated due application of mind, even if not
elaborate, thereby rejecting the notion of mechanical action. This judgment
reinforces procedural clarity while affirming that serious allegations of fraud
cannot be dismissed as routine financial disputes.
info@adhwaitha.com