The condition necessary for an act to constitute an offence under Section 415 of the Penal Code is that there was dishonest inducement by the accused.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on : 21.10.2021 Pronounced on : 12.11.2021 CRMC No. 297 2013M s Indian Academy of Sciences and …..Appellant(s) Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Sachin Gupta Advocate. …. Respondent(s) Prof. Indu Bhushan and others Through: Mr. Anil Khajuria Advocate for R 1 Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL JUDGE The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 561 A Cr.P.C.for quashing of criminal proceedings in complaint titled “Professor Indu Bhushan Sharma Vs Dr Devinder Singh and others” pending before the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate(hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) filed under sections 417 420 120 B. It is stated that petitioner No. 1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is based in Bangalore. The Society was established by a renowned scientist Sir C. V. Raman and its aim is to disseminate science to the mankind. The petitioner No. 2 is the editor whose role is to find the suitable and competent reviewers to access the 2 CRMC No. 297 2013 suitability of the paper received for publication as per the policy and guidelines stipulated by the Academy. It is further stated that proforma respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted their manuscripts titled Synthesis and Characterization of Ruddlesden Poper(RP) type phase LaSr2MnCrO7 on 5th February 2010 and revised it on 22nd April 2010 as per reviewer(s) recommendations and the paper was accepted by the petitioner’s board for publication in the Journal on 4th May 2010 and the same was published in journal of Chemical Sciences16 SCC 739 the Apex Court has observed: “15. Section 415 of the Penal Code reads thus: “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”.” 16. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows: 16.1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him: 16.1.1. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or 16.1.2. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and 16.2. In cases covered by 16.1.2. above the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body mind reputation or property. 17. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating. 18. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus: “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 6 CRMC No. 297 2013 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” 20. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420. 19.2. The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to a) deliver property to any person or b) make alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. 23. The condition necessary for an act to constitute an offence under Section 415 of the Penal Code is that there was dishonest inducement by the accused. The first respondent admitted that the disputed sum was transferred by the son of the appellants to her bank account on 17 2 2010. She alleges that she transferred the money belonging to the son of the appellants at his behest. No act on part of the appellants has been alleged that discloses an intention to induce the delivery of any property to the appellants by the first respondent. There is thus nothing on the face of the complaint to indicate that the appellants dishonestly induced the first respondent to deliver any property to them. Cheating is an essential ingredient to an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code. The ingredient necessary to constitute the offence of cheating is not made out from the face of the complaint and consequently no offence under Section 420 is made out.” Thus there must be an initial deception on the part of accused so as to induce 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 anything which he would not do or omit if he was not so deceived. So far as the petitioners are concerned they have simply published the manuscript submitted by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and it is not even the case of respondent No:1 that the petitioners have fraudulently or dishonestly induced him to deliver manuscript or to retain that as such the very basic ingredients of cheating are absent in the instant case. The only grievance of the respondent against the petitioners is that the petitioners even after the receipt of his notice did not get the said article 7 CRMC No. 297 2013 removed from their website and the journal of Chemical Science of Indian Academy of Science as mentioned in para 10 of the complaint. It by no stretch of imagination constitutes offence of cheating as defined under Section 415 RPC. The respondent at the most could have resorted to the remedies under civil law but could not have taken recourse to criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The respondent No:1 may or may not have any cause against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 but so far as petitioners are concerned no offence has been committed by them that necessitates their prosecution by respondent No. 1 as such the continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner shall be nothing but an abuse of process of law. In view of this the present petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in complaint filed under sections 417 420 120 B titled as Professor Indu Bhushan Sharma Vs Dr Devinder Singh and others pending before the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate Passenger Tax Shops and establishment Act) stands quashed qua the petitioners only. JUDGE Whether the order is speaking: Whether the order is reportable: Sahil Padha 

Summary: There must be an initial deception on the part of accused so as to induce 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 anything which he would not do or omit if he was not so deceived. The aforesaid has been established by the High Court of Jammu &amp;Kashmir and Ladakh while adjudicating the case of M/s Indian Academy of Sciences and Another Vs Indu Bhushan and others [CRMC No. 297/2013 (O&amp;M)] which was decided upon by a single judge bench comprising Justice Puneet Gupta on 24th November 2021. The facts of the case are as follows. respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted their manuscripts titled Synthesis and Characterization of RuddlesdenPoper(RP) type phase LaSr2MnCrO7 on 5th February 2010 and revised it on 22nd April 2010 as per reviewer(s) recommendations and the paper was accepted by the petitioner’s board for publication in the Journal on 4 th May 2010 and the same was published in journal of Chemical Sciences (vol. 122 No. 6 Nov 2010 PP 807-811). After two years of its publication, a complaint of plagiarism was received by the petitioners from respondent No. 1 alleging that the complainant i.e. respondent No. 1 is one of the co-authors of manuscript and while sending the manuscript for publication, name of respondent No. 1 has been deliberately omitted. the only allegation against the petitioners is that they published the manuscript without the name of respondent No. 1 and when the same was brought to their notice, the same was not removed. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. (now 482 Cr.P.C) for quashing of criminal proceedings in complaint titled “Professor Indu Bhushan Sharma Vs Dr Devinder Singh and others” pending before the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Passenger Tax Shops and Establishment Act) (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) filed under sections 417,420, 120-B. The court perused the facts and arguments presented. It was of the opinion that “ The only grievance of the respondent against the petitioners is that, the petitioners even after the receipt of his notice did not get the said article removed from their website and the journal of Chemical Science of Indian Academy of Science, as mentioned in para 10 of the complaint. It by no stretch of imagination constitutes offence of cheating as defined under Section 415 RPC. The respondent at the most could have resorted to the remedies under civil law but could not have taken recourse to criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The respondent No:1 may or may not have any cause against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 but so far as petitioners are concerned, no offence has been committed by them that necessitates their prosecution by respondent No. 1, as such the continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner shall be nothing but an abuse of process of law. In view of this, the present petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in complaint filed under sections 417,420, 120-B titled as Professor Indu Bhushan Sharma Vs Dr Devinder Singh and others pending before the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Passenger Tax Shops and establishment Act) stands quashed, qua the petitioners only.”