IPC Section 420 — Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

Judgments citing IPC Section 420

1. Bellamkonda Suman vs The State of Telangana on 23 November, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana23 Nov 2023

   Case Name: Bellamkonda Suman vs The State of Telangana on 23 November, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 23 November, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Rape, Cheating, and Threatening Conduct Key Legal Propositions 1. Consent for sexual intercourse must be freely given and not based on a false promise of marriage to negate the offence of rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. 2. Significant delays in reporting an offence, coupled with material inconsistencies between the initial complaint (Section 161 CrPC statement) and subsequent testimony, raise a strong suspicion of fabricated evidence. 3. Mere allegations of abuse without specific details are insufficient to establish an offence under Section 506 of the IPC. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant/accused filed a Criminal Appeal challenging a judgment of the Special Sessions Judge convicting him under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, and 506 of the IPC, based on a complaint alleging rape under the pretext of marriage, cheating, and threatening conduct. The complainant (P.W.1) alleged a six-year relationship with the appellant, during which he promis

2. Smt A. Sreelatha vs The State of Telangana on 10 August, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana10 Aug 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. A party may withdraw an appeal with liberty to pursue other legal remedies. 2. Courts may dispose of appeals based on a request for withdrawal, without addressing the merits of the case. 3. Pending miscellaneous applications are closed upon disposal of the primary appeal. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant, Smt. A. Sreelatha, filed a Writ Appeal against an order dated 20.07.2023 in W.P. No. 3754 of 2023. The appeal related to a request for a fresh investigation into Crime No. 209/2022, filed against Respondent No. 5 for offences under Sections 417, 420, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant also filed an application seeking a stay of the impugned order. Held: A. On Withdrawal of Appeal: Majority View: The Court allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal with liberty to pursue other legal remedies available to her. Dissenting View: None. B. On Miscellaneous Applications: Majority View: Any pending miscellaneous applications were directed to be closed. Dissenting View: None. C. On Costs: Majority View: There would be no order as to costs. Dissenting View: None. Decision: The W

3. Dharmaiah Thati vs The State of Telangana on 26 July, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana26 Jul 2023

   Case Name: Dharmaiah Thati vs The State of Telangana on 26 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 26 July, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Investigation – Civil Dispute Key Legal Propositions 1. Where the alleged offence arises from a civil dispute, particularly concerning property rights amongst partners, and the prescribed punishment is relatively minor, the Court may direct the Investigating Officer to adhere to procedural safeguards under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and Supreme Court guidelines to ensure due process. 2. The High Court, exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can intervene to prevent unnecessary arrest and ensure a fair investigation, especially when the dispute appears predominantly civil in nature. 3. Cooperation with the Investigating Officer, including providing necessary information and documents, is a reasonable expectation from the petitioner to facilitate a proper investigation. Judgment Summary Background: The Criminal Petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Crime No. 121 of 2023 registered at Mariped

4. Jannu Shyamsunder vs The State of Telangana on 17 November, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana17 Nov 2023

   Case Name: Jannu Shyamsunder vs The State of Telangana on 17 November, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 17 November, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Cheating, Sexual Offence Key Legal Propositions 1. The act of tying a sacred thread (mangalsutra) alone does not constitute cheating in the absence of an intention to deceive from the inception of the relationship. 2. A long-term consensual sexual relationship negates the element of inducement necessary to establish the offence of cheating, particularly when the complainant does not allege inducement linked to the promise of marriage. 3. Mere refusal to marry after a prolonged relationship, without evidence of fraudulent intent, does not amount to the offence of cheating. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant/accused filed a Criminal Appeal against his conviction by the Special Judge for Fast Tracking of Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women-cum-IX Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction stemmed from allegations of cheating and a subsequent sexual relationship with the complainant (PW1). T

5. Epuri Chinna Ramalingaiah vs Alla Mallikarjuna Rao on 31 January, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana31 Jan 2023

   Case Name: Epuri Chinna Ramalingaiah vs Alla Mallikarjuna Rao on 31 January, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 31 January, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice A. Venkateswara Reddy Subject: Civil Appeal – Recovery of Money – Promissory Note – Guarantee – Blank Promissory Notes – Evidence Key Legal Propositions 1. A defendant avoiding entering the witness box after filing a written statement invites an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. 2. Applications for production of additional documents at a belated stage, particularly when the trial has concluded, are generally not favored unless a satisfactory explanation for the delay is provided. 3. Courts should strive for timely conclusion of trials and amendments to the CPC aim to facilitate this, discouraging prolonged proceedings and belated evidence submissions. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,32,000/- based on a promissory note and a guarantee. The plaintiff alleged a hand loan given to the 1st defendant, secured by a guarantee from the 2nd defendant (appellant). The 1st defendant denied the transaction, claiming the promissory note w

6. Syed Hamed vs State of Telangana on 28 April, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana28 Apr 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Quashing of criminal proceedings is not permissible where allegations of fabrication of documents exist. 2. Courts may grant interim protection from coercive action for a limited period, pending investigation. 3. Section 482 CrPC allows for the quashing of criminal proceedings in appropriate cases. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 29 of 2022 registered with Lalaguda Police Station, Hyderabad, alleging offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474, 420, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Held: A. On Quashing of FIR: Majority View: The Court declined to quash the proceedings due to the serious allegations of document fabrication. However, it directed the police not to take coercive steps against the petitioner for four weeks from the date of the order. Dissenting View: None apparent in the provided text. B. On Interim Relief: Majority View: The Court granted a temporary stay of coercive action for four weeks to allow for investigation to proceed without immediate arrest. Dissenting

7. J. Jangam Suresh vs The State of Telangana & Anr. on 28 February, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana28 Feb 2023

   Case Name: J. Jangam Suresh vs The State of Telangana & Anr. on 28 February, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 28 February, 2023 Bench: Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Revision – Discharge Application – Section 482 CrPC – Attendance Exemption Key Legal Propositions 1. A revisional court generally refrains from interfering with a lower court’s order dismissing a discharge application unless compelling reasons exist. 2. Courts may dispense with the attendance of an accused during trial upon specific conditions, ensuring the proceedings are not disputed later. 3. The dispensation of attendance is contingent upon the accused’s willingness to abide by the court’s directions and appear when specifically required. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Revision Case challenges the order of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, dismissing a discharge application (Crl.M.P.No.2113 of 2017) filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 in C.C.No.32 of 2015, concerning offences under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner sought to be discharged and, concu

8. Linga Suresh vs The State of Telangana on 25 July, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana25 Jul 2023

   Case Name: Linga Suresh vs The State of Telangana on 25 July, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 25 July, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Offenses under the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Key Legal Propositions 1. Reliance on documentary evidence like receipts can be sustained even if the executing witness turns hostile, provided other corroborating evidence exists. 2. The ingredients of Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 are attracted when deposits are collected with an intent to defraud, even if the maturity date is near. 3. All partners of a financial establishment are liable for offenses committed in the course of business, including collecting deposits, if they are responsible for the management of its affairs. Judgment Summary Background: The appellants were convicted for offenses under Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999, and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, based on allegations of running a fra

9. Kanukuntla Shekar vs The State of Telangana on 12 April, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana12 Apr 2023

   Case Name: Kanukuntla Shekar vs The State of Telangana on 12 April, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 12 April, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Smt. Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Appeal – POCSO Act, IPC Sections 366, 376, 417, 420, SC/ST (POA) Act Key Legal Propositions 1. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and a lack of corroborating evidence can be fatal to a conviction. 2. The delay in reporting a crime, coupled with inconsistencies in witness testimonies, raises doubts about the prosecution's case. 3. Evidence regarding the victim's age must be established through proper documentation, and reliance on inconsistent or unverified sources is insufficient. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal challenges the judgment of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, which convicted the Appellant/Accused under Sections 366, 420 of IPC, Section 376 of IPC (alternatively Section 4 of POCSO Act) and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989, sentencing him to seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000. The case stemmed from a report alleging that the accused enticed a minor gir

10. Likki Venkat Reddy & Karnati Yadagiri Reddy vs The State of A.P. on 09 June, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana9 Jun 2023

    Case Name: Likki Venkat Reddy & Karnati Yadagiri Reddy vs The State of A.P. on 09 June, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 09 June, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Cheating and Circulation of Fake Currency Key Legal Propositions 1. Conviction under Section 420 IPC requires proof of deception and inducement to deliver property, but not necessarily successful deception. 2. If the complainant intended to engage in an illegal act (circulation of fake currency), the ingredients of Section 420 IPC may not be met even if deceived. 3. Absence of possession of fake currency notes is a significant factor in determining the culpability under Section 489 IPC. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment dated 27.01.2010, convicting the appellants under Sections 420 and 489-8 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for failing to provide fake currency notes in exchange for original currency. The prosecution alleged that the appellants took Rs. 3,00,000/- from the complainant (PW1) with a promise to deliver fake currency notes worth Rs. 3,00,000/- but failed to do so. One of the appellants di

11. Sri Milohd. Jahangir vs M/s Rabia Sultana & Ors. on 20 June, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana20 Jun 2023

    Case Name: Sri Milohd. Jahangir vs M/s Rabia Sultana & Ors. on 20 June, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 20 June, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Forgery, Cheating, Acquittal Key Legal Propositions 1. A conviction cannot be solely based on the evidence of a handwriting expert, especially when there is no evidence that the accused fabricated the document in question. 2. An appellate court, when dealing with an appeal against an acquittal, must consider whether the trial court’s view was a possible one, and should only disturb the acquittal upon substantial and compelling reasons. 3. The appellate court should not disturb the trial court’s acquittal if the finding was based on a reasonable view of the evidence, and the trial court did not err in its assessment. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arises from the acquittal of the respondents/accused by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in a case involving allegations of forgery and cheating under Sections 419, 420, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant/complainant alleged that the respondents fabricated a ‘Jehaz li

12. M. Abhishek vs The State of Telangana on 22 August, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana22 Aug 2023

    Case Name: M. Abhishek vs The State of Telangana on 22 August, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 22 August, 2023 Bench: Alok Aradhe, C.J. and T. Vinod Kumar, J. Subject: Writ Appeal – Dismissal of Writ Petition seeking direction to register FIR – Police Enquiry finding allegations incorrect – Alternative remedy available under CrPC. Key Legal Propositions 1. Where police authorities, upon conducting an enquiry, find allegations made in a complaint to be incorrect, the Court may not interfere with the order dismissing the writ petition seeking direction to register an FIR. 2. An aggrieved party whose complaint is not registered has alternative remedies available under Sections 154, 156, and 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). 3. The Court will not interfere with an order dismissing a writ petition if the petitioner has alternative remedies available in law. Judgment Summary Background: The Writ Appeal arises from the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 40933 of 2022. The Petitioner, M. Abhishek, filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) based on his complaint allegi

13. Chander Bhushan Singh vs The State of Telangana on 06 April, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana6 Apr 2023

    Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Anticipatory bail applications can be withdrawn with the permission of the Court. 2. Upon withdrawal of an application, the Court may dismiss the petition. 3. Direction to police to enlarge petitioners on bail becomes irrelevant upon withdrawal of the petition. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Petition sought anticipatory bail for the Petitioners, Chander Bhushan Singh and Priyanka, in connection with Crime No. 81 of 2022 registered with the Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. The charges included offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, Section 5 of the TS PDFE Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978. Held: A. On Withdrawal of Petition: Majority View: The learned counsel for the Petitioners sought permission to withdraw the bail application. The Court granted permission and accordingly dismissed the petition as withdrawn. Dissenting View: None. B. On Anticipatory Bail: Majority View: No ruling was made on the merits of the anticipatory bail application as it was withdrawn. Dissenting View: None. C. On Offences under IPC, TS PDFE Act and P

14. Union of India vs Y. Vijaya on 18 April, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana18 Apr 2023

    Case Name: Union of India vs Y. Vijaya on 18 April, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 18 April, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Sri Justice Pulla Karthik Subject: Writ Appeal – Rejection of candidature for Constable post due to past criminal case – Consideration of Acquittal – Principles of Natural Justice. Key Legal Propositions 1. An employer must consider the specific circumstances when assessing information regarding a candidate’s criminal history, particularly the nature of the offense and the outcome of the case. 2. A mere rejection of candidature without assigning reasons is unsustainable and requires re-examination in light of established legal principles and guidelines. 3. While a clean acquittal is preferable, an acquittal based on benefit of doubt should also be considered by the employer, along with other relevant factors, before rejecting a candidate. Judgment Summary Background: The Writ Appeal arises from a challenge to a Single Judge’s order setting aside the rejection of a candidate (Respondent) for a Constable post in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The Respondent was prov

15. M.Manikyam (died) per LRs vs GIC Housing Finance Ltd on 06 April, 2015

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana6 Apr 2015

    Case Name: M.Manikyam (died) per LRs vs GIC Housing Finance Ltd on 06 April, 2015 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 27 December, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani Subject: Civil Appeal – Recovery of Money, Fraud, Burden of Proof Key Legal Propositions 1. A second appeal is maintainable only if a substantial question of law is involved, not merely a question of law. 2. Courts below are generally not interfered with on concurrent findings of fact, except in specific circumstances like ignoring material evidence or acting on no evidence. 3. Once the plaintiff establishes a loan transaction and issuance of cheques, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove non-receipt or non-encashment of the cheques. Judgment Summary Background: This Second Appeal arises from a suit for recovery of money filed by GIC Housing Finance Ltd. against M.Manikyam and others. The plaintiff alleged a fraudulent loan transaction involving fabricated documents. The trial court and first appellate court both decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable. The appellants (defendants 3 to 5) challenge this decisi

16. The State of Telangana vs. Gugulothu Nagu on 14 August, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana14 Aug 2023

    Case Name: The State of Telangana vs. Gugulothu Nagu on 14 August, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 14 August, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Sri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti Subject: Service Law – Rejection of candidature for police constable post – Acquittal in criminal case – Consideration of acquittal in light of principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Key Legal Propositions 1. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second-guess the suitability of a candidate for public office absent evidence of malice, illegality, or lack of bonafide. 2. Acquittal with benefit of doubt, or due to hostile witnesses, does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment, particularly in a disciplined force; the employer retains the right to assess suitability based on established guidelines. 3. An employer cannot unilaterally determine if an employee’s past conduct constitutes moral turpitude; this is a matter for the criminal courts. A mere allegation is insufficient, and the prosecution must establish the offence. Judgment Summary Background: The Writ Appeal arises from a Single Judge’s order allowing a Writ Petit

17. Charukonda Shankar vs The State of Telangana & Ors on 28 March, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana28 Mar 2023

    Case Name: Charukonda Shankar vs The State of Telangana & Ors on 28 March, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 28 March, 2023 Bench: Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Revision – Refusal to take cognizance – Indian Penal Code – Sections 270, 379, 406, 420 r/w 34 – Criminal Procedure Code – Sections 397 & 401 Key Legal Propositions 1. Criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to continue based on mere assumptions. 2. In revision proceedings under Section 401 of CrPC, the High Court is confined to examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of the order passed by the lower court. 3. Adequate reasons given by the lower court for refusing to take cognizance are generally upheld unless demonstrably erroneous or illegal. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Revision Case challenges the order dated 22.01.2021 of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, refusing to take cognizance against Respondents 2 to 6 for offences punishable under Sections 270, 379, 406, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner/Defacto Complainant alleged that the accused persons mistreated his mother, took her signature under duress, m

18. Mrs. E. Sunitha vs D. Prabhakar on 25 January, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana25 Jan 2023

    Case Name: Mrs. E. Sunitha vs D. Prabhakar on 25 January, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 25 January, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice A. Venkateswara Reddy Subject: Civil Appeal – Restoration of Possession, Mesne Profits, Execution of Decree Key Legal Propositions 1. A claim for restoration of possession requires establishing title and possession, which was not adequately proven by the appellant. 2. Mere possession based on household cards and utility bills is insufficient to establish ownership. 3. A decree obtained through due process of law cannot be challenged based on prior alleged agreements not brought on record. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arises from the dismissal of a claim petition seeking restoration of possession of a property, alleging dispossession during execution proceedings. The appellant claimed to have purchased the property and been in possession since 1999, while the respondents asserted ownership based on a prior agreement of sale and subsequent decree in a suit. Held: A. On Issue of Possession and Title: Majority View: The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the appellant failed to establish

19. Akther Zahida vs The State of Telangana on 17 February, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana17 Feb 2023

    Case Name: Akther Zahida vs The State of Telangana on 17 February, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 17 February, 2023 Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.J. and N. Tukaramji, J. Subject: Writ Appeal – Interference with Possession – Concurrent Litigation – Discretion of Court Key Legal Propositions 1. Where a writ petition seeks to prevent interference with possession of property that is also subject matter of a pending civil suit, the High Court may decline to interfere, particularly when it involves disputed questions of fact. 2. A party is not precluded from seeking appropriate remedies, such as an injunction, within the framework of the ongoing civil suit. 3. Once a judgment has been dictated in open court, it is generally not permissible to recall it, even upon a request for withdrawal. Judgment Summary Background: This writ appeal arises from an order dated 07 February 2023, passed by a learned Single Judge, declining to interfere with a writ petition (W.P.No. 552 of 2023) filed by the appellants seeking to prevent interference with their possession of certain properties. The Single Judge noted the pendency of a civil suit (O.S.No.16 of

20. D Srinivasa Rao vs The State of Telangana on 24 April, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana24 Apr 2023

    Case Name: D Srinivasa Rao vs The State of Telangana on 24 April, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 24 April, 2023 Bench: Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili & Justice Pulla Karthik Subject: Service Law – Suspension – Disciplinary Proceedings – Review of Suspension Order – Period of Suspension – Transfer during Suspension Key Legal Propositions 1. Prolonged suspension of an employee, exceeding six years, is arbitrary in the absence of demonstrable public interest or ongoing disciplinary proceedings. 2. Transferring a suspended employee does not negate the need for a review of the suspension order, particularly considering the length of suspension. 3. Authorities must review suspension orders in accordance with established rules and relevant precedents, considering all attendant circumstances. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant, a Joint Commissioner of State GST, was placed under suspension in 2017 following the registration of a criminal case and initiation of disciplinary proceedings alleging financial irregularities. Despite a prior direction from the Court to review the suspension order, it was repeatedly extended. The appe