IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.09.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM Criminal Revision Case No.1138 of 2008 Seeyathammal ... Petitioner -Vs.- 1. Vinayagamoorthy 2. State, Represented by, Sub-Inspector of Police, V-4 Rajamangalam Police Station Chennai – 600 099 (Crime No.250 of 1999) ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set-aside the acquittal of the first respondent for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai @ Egmore by his judgment dated 30.05.2008 in C.C.No.7133 of 1999. For Petitioner : Mr. R.John Sathyan For Respondent : Mr. A.Saravanan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), for R-2. - - - O R D E R The above Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, rendered in C.C.No.7133 of 1999 whereby the first respondent herein had been acquitted of the charge under Section 420 IPC but had been convicted for the offence under Section 417 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner basing reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in CDJ 2002 APHC 749 (Suram Kiran Kumar Reddy Vs. State of A.P.) submitted that from the facts established in the case, by the evidence adduced and by the prosecution an offence under Section 420 IPC has been made out, since as per the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court ‘chastity’ and / or ‘virginity’ of a woman is covered by ‘property’ under Section 415 IPC. He further submitted that the betrothal between the petitioner and the accused / the first respondent herein was performed eight months prior to 23.03.1999, but since the parents of the petitioner could not comply with the demand of 15 sovereigns jewels made by the mother of the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent the marriage proposal was dropped, but thereafter the first respondent assured the petitioner that he would take her as his wife and under that pretext he had sexual intercourse with her and due to that she became pregnant; inspite of the petitioner’s fervent request to the first respondent to marry her, he flatly refused to marry her but tortured the petitioner to abort the child; the above heinous act of the first respondent will definitely amount to an offence under Section 420 IPC. 3. I have carefully considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. In the decision reported in CDJ 2002 APHC 749 (referred to supra) in paragraph 12 the learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held as under:- “(12) IN my considered view ‘chastity’ and/or ‘virginity’ of a woman is also covered by ‘property’ used in Section 415 IPC for the reason that a woman who engages in sexual activity for ‘payment’ is called a prostitute, and the ‘payment’ in such case is made by ‘the man for ‘buying’ sexual pleasure. Traditionally Indian women try to preserve their virginity to ‘offer’ it to their husband on the first night of their nuptial. They also treat and consider ‘chastity’ as if it were ‘property’. For rape they say in Telugu when translated means he stole my chastity’, as if it were property. The averments in the FIR show that in view of the promise made by the 1st petitioner to marry her only, 2nd respondent spent a few nights with him in some hotels, and also in his house during the absence of his parents. The dishonest or fraudulent inducement on the part of 1st petitioner made the 2nd respondent to offer her ‘chastity’, (which, in my considered opinion, can be considered as property) is apparent from the averments in the FIR. Had the 1st petitioner not promised to marry her, 2nd respondent would not have spent a few nights with 1st petitioner. Thus prima facie the ingredients necessary for the offence of cheating, as contemplated by Section 415 IPC, are found in the FIR. Whether the offence alleged is covered by Section 417 or Section 420 IPC is a matter to be determined by the Magistrate while framing charges.” In the said decision, the learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has equated the ‘chastity’ and/or ‘virginity’ of a woman with ‘property’ as found in Section 415 IPC. With respect to the learned Judge I am unable to agree with the said view. 5. To decide the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner it will be useful to refer to the provisions contained in Sections 415, 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code which read as under:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “415. Cheating. - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “Cheat”. 417. Punishment for Cheating. - Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. - 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 seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” A careful reading of the aforesaid provisions makes is clear that to hold a person guilty of cheating as defined under Section 415 of the IPC it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise with an intention to retain the property. In other words, Section 415 of the IPC which defines cheating, requires deception of any person (a) inducing that person (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person, anybody’s mind, reputation or property. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases, the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest. Thus it is clear that while the first part deals with delivery of any property or retention of the property the second part deals with inducement made by the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Therefore when the Statute itself makes a distinction between different types of cheating such legislative intention should be given full effect to. While interpreting such provision the Court should normally give the literal meaning to such words and should not introduce something which is not found in the statutory provisions. 6. Section 420 IPC specifically deals with cheating and dishonest inducement of valuable property. A reading of Section https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 420 IPC shows that it does not cover the cheating dealt with by second class of Section 415 IPC whereas it deals with cheating defined in the first class of Section 415 IPC. When the Statute contains two different provisions to deal with two different kinds of offence and when the allegations contained in the complaint attract a particular offence as defined in a particular provision, the Court can only convict the person of that offence which he has committed. The Court by interpretation of its own notions cannot convict a person for a different offence if such acts committed by the accused do not fall within the definition of such offence. With great respect of the learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, I am not able to subscribe to the view expressed by him. By no stretch of imagination the ‘chastity’ and / or ‘virginity of a woman’ could be compared with ‘property’. This is something more valuable and precious. Such type of offences like the offence committed by the respondent herein may be required to be dealt with seriously and severe punishment should be imposed but when the Section itself prescribes a maximum punishment, the Court cannot impose more than the prescribed sentence. Admittedly the petitioner not being satisfied with the sentence imposed on the petitioner has already filed a revision seeking enhancement of sentence and the same will be dealt with in accordance with law. But as far as the case on hand is concerned, the reasoning of the learned Magistrate for not convicting the first respondent under Section 420 IPC cannot be said to be either illegal or unsustainable. 7. Therefore, for the above said reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment dated 30.05.2008 passed in C.C.No.7133 of 2008 passed by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Accordingly the above Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is dismissed. Srk Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 2.Do Through The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 8. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras 4.The Sub-Inspector of Police, V-4 Rajamangalam Police Station Chennai – 600 099 RR(CO) SR/17.10.2008 Crl.R.C.No.1138 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/