Introduction

• This case deals with the cheating of a person by making another person believe that he has some extra powers to cure someone from disease.
• The case is one of the examples of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which makes the act of cheating and dishonestly inducing to deliver a property a punishable offence

Facts

• In this case the Appellant (Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishanandha Maharaj) of Gummaluru Village in Andhra Pradesh claimed to possess occult faculties and attracted several devotees.
  • He claimed that he has divine healing powers to cure particularly chronic diseases by his touch.
• He demanded 1 lakh rupees for the treatment of the daughter of the complainant, but the complainant paid Rs 6000, initially.
• The Appellant committed to cure the girl by the year 1994, however no improvement was noticeable as assured.
• The complainant heard about the appellant that he deceived many people, then he filed an FIR.
  • The Police investigated the matter and submitted the final report to the Magistrate on the grounds that it was mistake of fact.
• However, the Magistrate ordered the investigation and found that the plaintiff had violated Section 420 of IPC.
• The appellant moved to the High Court on the grounds that Magistrate had no right for new investigation, and he had not done any cheating or violated Section 420 of IPC.

Issues Involved

• Whether the appellant violated Section 420 of IPC and committed cheating with complainant?
• Whether the Magistrate has powers to order new investigation?

Observation

• The Court observed that when a person prays to God to heal the sick, there is usually no deception.
• But when he shows to another person that he has sacred power and makes another person directly or indirectly believe that he has this sacred power, then anyone who responds appropriately and provides money or other items for the incentive measure but does not achieve the expected effect is a victim of cheating.
• The Court further observed that under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the police can do further investigations after expressing final opinion.
  • Therefore, the court said that the learned magistrate has not committed any mistake in ordering the police for reinvestigation.
• The Court said this is a case of cheating as he represented himself that he has scared powers and demanded money from the people, thus this matter falls under Section 420 of IPC.

Conclusion

• The Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant and held him liable for cheating and deceiving property.

Note

Section 420 of IPC: 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.