Shri Bhagwan S S V V Maharaj v State of A P 1999 Case Analysis

Case – Shri Bhagwan S.S.V.V. Maharaj v. State of A.P., 1999

Case Summary

Full Case Details

Fact

Sri Bhagwan S.S.V.V. Maharaj represented to have divine healing powers through his touch, particularly of chronic diseases. The complainant approached him for healing his 15 year old daughter who is congenitally a dumb child. Sri Bhagwan S.S.V.V. Maharaj assured the complainant that the little girl would be cured of her impairment through his divine powers. He demanded a sum of Rs.1 lac as consideration to be paid in instalments. The first instalment demanded was Rs.10,000/- which, after some bargaining, was fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

He waited eagerly for the improvement of his dumb child till 1994 which was the time limit indicated by the appellant for the girl to start speaking. But he could not get a result. In the meanwhile, he got the news that accused had cheated several persons and earned more than one crore of rupees. It was then that the complainant realized the fraud committed by the appellant.

When he moved the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings pending against him, the motion was dismissed as per the impugned order against which the present appeal has been filed by special leave.

Issue

Whether this matter falls in ambit of section 420 of IPC and fulfills its ingredients?

Observation & Judgement:

• If somebody offers his prayers to God for healing the sick, there cannot normally be any element of fraud. But if he represents to another that he has divine powers and either directly or indirectly makes that other person believe that he has such divine powers, it is inducement referred to in Section 415 IPC.
• Anybody who responds to such inducement pursuant to it and gives the inducer money or any other article and does not get the desired result is a victim of the fraudulent representation. The court can in such a situation presume that the offence of cheating falling within the ambit of Section 420 IPC has been committed.
• So the contention that the allegations do not disclose an offence under Section 420 IPC has to be repelled and we are of the opinion that the Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the said offence.
• Power of the police to conduct further investigation, after laying final report, is recognised under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even after the court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of the police report first submitted , it is open to the police to conduct further investigation.

FULL CASE FROM CASE MATERIAL :

K.T. THOMAS, J. – A godman is now in the dock. One who was initiated by him as his devotee
has later turned to be his bete noire, and the godman is facing a prosecution for the offence
of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. When he moved the High Court to
quash the criminal proceedings pending against him, the motion was dismissed as per the
impugned order against which the present appeal has been filed by special leave.

3. Facts, thus far developed, are stated below: An FIR happened to be registered on the
   complaint lodged by one Venkatakrishna Reddy with the Town Police Station, Nellore,
   containing the following allegations. The appellant (Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada
   Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj) who is a young man, son of a teacher of
   Gummaluru Village (A.P.) claimed to possess occult faculties and attracted a number of
   devotees. He represented to have divine healing powers through his touches, particularly of
   chronic diseases. The complainant approached him for healing his 15-year-old daughter who
   is congenitally a dumb child. The appellant assured the complainant that the little girl would
   be cured of her impairment through his divine powers. He demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as
   consideration to be paid in installments. The first installment demanded was Rs. 10,000
   which, after some bargaining, was fixed at Rs. 5000. The complainant paid that amount and
   later he paid a further amount of Rs. 1000 towards incidental expenses. He waited eagerly
   for improvement of his dumb child till 1994 which was the time-limit indicated by the
   appellant for the girl to start speaking. As the child remained the same, the complainant
   began to entertain doubts. The appellant postponed the time-limit till August 1994 for the
   girl to develop speech capacity. A little more amount of Rs. 516 was collected for
   performance of a yagya. But unfortunately no such thing brought about any change in the
   girl. In the meanwhile, news of some other persons defrauded by the appellant reached the
   ears of the complainant as newspapers started publishing such other activities indulged in by
   the appellant. In one such publication it was mentioned that the appellant had mobilised
   more than a crore of rupees from different devotees. It was then that the complainant
   realised the fraud committed by the appellant, according to the complainant. Hence a
   complaint was lodged with the police for cheating.
4. The police conducted investigation and on 15-12-1994 laid final report before the
   Magistrate concerned by referring the case as “mistake of fact” mainly on the ground that
   this is a kind of religious belief “prevalent in India among devotees of God”. According to the
   appellant, this was not a case of cheating or breach of trust. But the Magistrate was not
   304
   prepared to give accord to the said report. On 2-8-1995 he ordered for “reinvestigation of
   the case”.
5. Pursuant to the said order, the police reinvestigated and filed a report on 15-9-1997
   holding that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 420 of IPC. The
   Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on receipt of the said report and issued warrant
   of arrest against the appellant.
6. The appellant moved the High Court for quashing the proceedings on two grounds.
   First is that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to order reinvestigation after receipt of the
   first report of the police, without affording an opportunity to the appellant. Second is that
   allegations of the complainant would not constitute an offence of cheating. But the High
   Court dismissed the petition for which the impugned order was passed.
7. Learned counsel contended that no offence of cheating can be discerned from the
   allegations, particularly in view of the admitted fact that the complainant reposed faith only
   in the divine powers which the appellant would only have offered to invoke through rituals
   and prayers.
8. If somebody offers his prayers to God for healing the sick, there cannot normally be
   any element of fraud. But if he represents to another that he has divine powers and either
   directly or indirectly makes that other person believe that he has such divine powers, it is
   inducement referred to in Section 415 IPC. Anybody who responds to such inducement
   pursuant to it and gives the inducer money or any other article and does not get the desired
   result is a victim of the fraudulent representation. The court can in such a situation presume
   that the offence of cheating falling within the ambit of Section 420 IPC has been committed.
   It is for the accused, in such a situation, to rebut the presumption.
9. So the contention that the allegations do not disclose an offence under Section 420
   IPC has to be repelled and we are of the opinion that the Magistrate has rightly taken
   cognizance of the said offence.
10. Power of the police to conduct further investigation, after laying final report, is
    recognised under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even after the court
    took cognizance of any offence on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open
    to the police to conduct further investigation. This has been so stated by this Court in Ram
    Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [AIR 1979 SC 1791]. The only rider provided by the
    aforesaid decision is that it would be desirable that the police should inform the court and
    seek formal permission to make further investigation.
    305
11. In such a situation the power of the court to direct the police to conduct further
    investigation cannot have any inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173 (8) to suggest that
    the court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any
    such obligation on the court would only result in encumbering the court with the burden of
    searching for all the potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard.
    As the law does not require it, we would not burden the Magistrate with such an obligation.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to interfere with the order passed by the
    Magistrate. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.