S.420 of IPC, Cheating and Principles of Quashing Without Settlement

  S.420 of IPC, Cheating and Principles of Quashing Without Settlement 

S.420 of IPC, 1860 says that "whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine". S.467 of IPC entails a punishment for life imprisonment.

In M/s Daya Engineering Works v. CBI [2019] GCtR 5203 (Delhi), the issue regarding quashing of FIR in context of S.420 of IPC, 1860 arose. It was argued by the accused that "there is no issue of criminality involved in the facts and circumstances of the case and continuation of proceeding will be a futile exercise". It was noted by Hon'ble J. SK Kait at page 12 that "acceptance of amount under One Time Settlement Scheme from the petitioners by the bank is towards satisfaction of civil liability whereas the criminal liability still survives against the petitioners." Accordingly, case was not quashed. 

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.