/2022 INSC 0380/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2022
Rekha Jain      ..Appellant (S)
Versus
The State of Karnataka & Anr.                       ..Respondent (S)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 15.09.2020 passed by the High
Court   of   Karnataka   at   Bengaluru   in   Criminal   Petition   No.
3442/2020,   by   which,   the   High   Court   has   dismissed   the
said   criminal   petition   and   has   refused   to   quash   the
FIR/criminal   proceedings   against   petitioners,   the   original
writ   petitioners   before   the   High   Court   have   preferred   the
present appeal.  
1

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by order dated
08.01.2021, the present appeal in respect of petitioner No.
1   (Kamalesh   Mulchand   Jain)   has   been   dismissed   and   the
notice has been issued in respect of appellant – petitioner
No.   2   (Rekha   Jain).   Therefore,   the   present   appeal   is
required to be considered qua accused Rekha Jain only.
3. That   respondent   No.   2   herein   –   original   complainant
lodged   a   complaint   against   one   Kamalesh   Mulchand   Jain
(husband   of   Rekha   Jain),   alleging,   inter­alia,   that   by
misrepresentation,   inducement   and   with   an   intention   to
cheat   him,   the   said   Kamalesh   Mulchand   Jain   had   taken
away 2 kg and 27 grams of gold jewellery. A complaint was
registered   as   FIR/Crime   Case   No.   75/2020   dated
13.03.2020   for   the   offence   under   Section   420   of   Indian
Penal Code (IPC). During the course of the investigation, it
was   found   that   appellant   –   Rekha   Jain   was   absconding
and   the   gold   jewellery,   taken   away   from   the   original
complainant   by   her   husband   –   Kamalesh   Mulchand   Jain,
was   with   her,   therefore,   the   investigation   was   carried   out
2

against   her   also,   which   led   to   the   said   Rekha   Jain   to
approach   the   High   Court   by   way   of   a   petition   under
section  482 of  Cr.PC  to  quash  the  FIR against  her  for  the
offence under Section 420 of IPC. By the impugned order,
the   High   Court   refused   to   quash   the   criminal
proceedings/FIR,   even   in   so   far   as   the   accused   –   Rekha
Jain is concerned. Hence, the present appeal. 
4. Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   –
accused   –   Rekha   Jain   has   vehemently   submitted   that
considering   the   allegations   in   the   complaint/FIR   as   they
are,   there   are   no   allegations   that   accused   Rekha   Jain
induced the complainant to deliver the gold jewellery. It is
submitted   that   the   entire   allegations   can   be   said   to   be
against  Kamalesh  Mulchand   Jain,  who   happens  to  be  the
husband   of   the   appellant   –   Rekha   Jain.   It   is   submitted
that   therefore,   when   there   are   no   allegations   of
inducement by present Appellant – Accused Rekha Jain, it
cannot be said that the appellant – accused – Rekha Jain
has committed any offence as alleged for the offence under
Section 420 of IPC. 
3

It   is   submitted   that   therefore   the   High   Court   has
committed   a   grave   error   in   not   quashing   the   criminal
proceedings  against  the   appellant   –  accused  ­  Rekha   Jain
for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.  
5. The   present   appeal   is   vehemently   opposed   by   Shri   Saket
Gogia, learned counsel appearing  on behalf of the original
complainant. 
5.1 It   is   vehemently   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing
on   behalf   of   the   original   complainant   that   the   appellant   –
accused   –   Rekha   Jain   is   found   to   be   in   possession   of   the
gold   jewellery,   which   was   taken   away   from   the
complainant.   That   even   the   appellant   –   accused   –   Rekha
Jain was absconding. It is contended that it cannot be said
that   the   appellant   has   not   committed   any   offence   at   all.
That the appellant – accused may be charged for the other
offences   of   keeping   the   gold   jewellery,   which   is   property
obtained   by   her   husband   by   cheating   and   deceiving.
Therefore,   it   is   prayed   not   to   quash   the   criminal
4

proceedings/FIR   even   so   far   as   the   appellant   –   accused   ­
Rekha Jain is concerned. 
  
6. Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   accused   –   Rekha
Jain   –   the   appellant   has   submitted   that   she   has   been
chargesheeted for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and
the said accused is shown as accused No. 4.  
7. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length. 
8. At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the   offence
alleged against the appellant – accused – Rekha Jain is for
the   offence   under   Section   420   of   IPC.   She   has   been   now
chargedsheeted   for   the   said   offence.   However,   considering
the   allegations   in   FIR/complaint,   it   can   be   seen   that   the
entire   and   all   the   allegations   are   against   the   accused
Kamalesh Mulchand Jain. In the complaint/FIR, there are
no   allegations   whatsoever   to   the   effect   that   the   accused   ­
Rekha Jain induced the complainant to part with the gold
jewellery.   Therefore,   in   the   absence   of   any   allegation   of
inducement   by   the   accused   Rekha   Jain,   she   cannot   be
5

prosecuted for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. There
must be a dishonest inducement by the accused. 
As per Section 420 of IPC, whoever cheats and thereby
dishonestly   induces   the   person   de ceived   to   deliver   any
property to any person, can be said to have committed the
offence under Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, to make out a
case against a person for the offence under Section 420 of
IPC,   there   must   be   a   dishonest   inducement   to   deceive   a
person to deliver  any  property  to any  other person. In the
present case, there is no allegation at all against accused –
Rekha   Jain   of   any   inducement   by   her   to   deceive   and   to
deliver   the   gold   jewellery.   The   allegations   of   dishonest
inducement   and   cheating   are   against   her   husband   –
accused   –   Kamalesh   Mulchand   Jain.   Therefore,
considering   the   allegations   in   the   FIR/complaint   as   they
are,   and   in   the   absence   of   any   allegation   of   dishonest
inducement by Rekha Jain, it cannot be said that she has
committed any offence under Section 420 of IPC for which
she   is   now   chargesheeted.   Therefore,   the   High   Court   has
committed   a   grave   error   in   not   quashing   the   criminal
6

proceedings   against   Rekha   Jain   for   the   offence   under
Section 420 of IPC. This is a fit case where the High Court
could   have   exercised   its   powers   under   Section   482   of
Cr.PC   and   to   quash   the   criminal   proceedings   against
Rekha Jain for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.     
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds in part. The criminal proceedings
against   the   appellant   –   accused   –   Rekha   Jain   for   the
offence   under   Section   420   of   IPC   is   hereby   quashed.
However, it is clarified that what is quashed is the criminal
proceedings   for   the   offence   under   Section  420  of   IPC   only
and   not   for   any   other   offence(s),   if   any,   committed   by   the
accused – Rekha Jain. The present appeal is limited to the
offence under Section 420 of IPC only as at present she is
chargesheeted   only   for   the   offence   under   Section   420   of
IPC. The present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
         
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
New Delhi,   (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
          May 10, 2022
7