Criminal Miscellaneous No.16338 of 1998 ------ In the matter of an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------ PREMA SINGH wife of Sri Krishna Bihari Sharma, lecturer, Mahendra Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Gopalganj, PS Gopalganj, Dist. Gopalganj ........petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ......Opposite Party ------- For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the State: Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Sr. Advocate --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH Shiva Kirti Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 18-4-98 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj in Trial No. 119/98 whereby he has rejected petitioner’s application for discharge in a case u/s 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was lodged through a FIR by Postal Department alleging that it is the petitioner who signed and purchased the NSCs (National Savings Certificates) worth Rs. 1,66,000/- but the 20 certificates were got issued in the name of her daughter who subsequently died and on maturity the petitioner again signed in the name of her daughter to collect cash which were reinvested in Kisan Vikas Patra in the name of some other person. 2 It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Postal Department has not been put to any loss and hence, the offence of cheating or cheating by impersonation is not at all attracted in this case. It was highlighted that admittedly the investment was made by the petitioner and she was entitled to get the money but apparently since she had used the name of her daughter for purchase, she did not take recourse to the proper course of obtaining legal permission to claim the invested money as that of her daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Vimla Vs Dehli Administration reported in AIR 1963 SC 1572. in that case the offence was under sections 467, 468 of the IPC and the allegation was that the accused had purchased a motor vehicle in the name of her daughter who was a minor and had got it insured in the name of the minor daughter and when the vehicle met with accident, the insurance claim was also made by the accused in the name of her daughter. In those circumstances, the Apex Court held that in order to prove the case of defraud two elements were required to be proved- deceit and injury to person deceived. It was held that deceit may be present but there was no injury to person deceived. In the present case also deceit may have been practiced by the petitioner by using the name of her daughter in purchasing the NSCs but there was no loss or injury to the Postal Department. Hence, no offence u/s 419 or 420 of the IPC can be made out 3 against the petitioner. In view of aforesaid facts, this application is allowed and the impugned order refusing discharge is set aside. As a result the petitioner shall stand discharged from the criminal proceedings relating to Trial No. 119/98 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj arising out of Gopalganj PS case No. 201/1993 (G.R. No. 1034/93). Patna High Court The 11th March, 2010 AFR/BKS (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)