A SRI BHAGWAN SAMARDHA SR,EEPADA VALLABHA VENKATA

VISHWANDADHA MAHARAJ

v.

ST A TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

B

JULY 15, 1999

[K.T.

THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 415 and 420-Cheating-Appellant's

representation of having divine healing powers-Assurance of curing

C complainant's child-Money charged-Impairment not cured-He/d­

Appellant's represf!ntation of possessing divine powers is inducement referred

in Section 415-Appellant's receiving of consideration and not giving the

desired result-Commission

of the offence of cheating presumed

Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Section 173(8)-lnvestigation-

D Complaint lodged-Investigation conducted by the police-Report presented

before the Magistrate that

no offence committed-Reinvestigation ordered by

the

Magistrate-Report filed that an offence under Section

420 /PC

committed-Petition before the High Court dismissed-Appeal filed-He/d­

Power of the Court to direct the police to conduct further investigation is

E not inhibited-There is nothing in the section to suggest that the Court is

obliged to hear the accused before directing any reinvestigation.

A complaint of cheating, against the appellant, was lodged with the

police by the complainant alleging that the appellant claimed

of possessing

divine healing

powers through his touches.

On the basis of said

F representation, the complainant approached the appellant for the healing of

his 15 year old daughter who was dumb by birth. The appellant assured

complainant

of curing is daughter's impairment through his divine powers

and charged a hefty sum of money

as consideration. When nothing improved

even after the lapse of the time limit fixed

by the appellant, the complainant

.r

G began to doubt the appellant. In the meanwhile when the complainant came

to know

of the news of defrauding of some other persons by the appellant and

his having mobilised a huge sum of money from his devotees, the complainant

lodged

~he complaint. After investigation, the police presented a final report

before the Magistrate referring it to be a case as "mistake of fact" on the

ground that this was a kind of religious belief in India among devotees of

H God. However, disagreeing with the said report, the Magistrate ordered for

870

-

-

B.S.S.V.V. MAHARAJv. STATE OF A.P. 871

reinvestigation. The police, after reinvestigation, filed a report holding that A

the appellant had committed an offence under Section 420 IPC. The Magistrate,

taking cognizance

of the offence on the said report, issued warrant of arrest

against the appellant.

The appellant approached the High

Court for quashing of the

proceedings before the Magistrate on the grounds

that the Magistrate had B

no jurisdiction to order reinvestigation without affording an opportunity to

the appellant after receipt

of the first report of the police and that the

allegations levelled against him in the complaint failed to constitute the

offence

of cheating. The High Court dismissed the said petition. Hence this

appeal

C

The appellant contended that the offence of cheating was not made out

from the allegations levelled against him

in view of the admitted fact that the

complainant reposed faith only

in the divine powers which appellant would

only have offered to invoke through rituals

and prayers.

Dismissing the appeal, this

Court

D

HELD : 1. 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 another

person believe

that he has such divine powers, it is inducement referred to E

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. 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. [873-H; 874-A-B]

F

2. Power of the police to conduct further investigation, after laying

final report,

is recognised under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. 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 G

conduct further investigation. The only rider provided on the said power of

conducting further investigation is that it would be desirable that the police

should inform the

Court and seek formal permission to make further

investigation. In such situation the power of 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 H

872

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A 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 beard.

[874-D-F)

Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR (1979) SC 1791,

B relied on.

c

D

E

F

G

H

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.

638

of 1999.

From the Judgment and

Order dated 12.11.98 of the Andhra Pradesh

High Court in Crl. P. No. 4836of1998.

A.K. Bajpai and Radha Shyam Jena for the Appellant.

G. Prabhakar for the Respondents.

The Judgment

of the Court was delivered by

THOMAS,

J. Leave granted.

A godman

is now in the dock.

One who was initiated by him as his

devotee has later turned to be his betenoire, 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.

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. Appellant

(Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha

Venkata Vishanandha Maharaj) who is a youngman, 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. Complainant approached him for

healing his

15 year old daughter who is congenitally a dumb child. Appellant

assured the complainant that the little girl would be cured

of her impairment

through his divine powers. He demanded a sum

of Rs. I 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. Complainant paid that amount

...

B.S.S.V.V. MAHARAJ v. STATE OF A.P. [THOMAS, J.] 873

and later he paid a further amount of Rs. l ,000 towards incidental expenses. A

He waited eagerly for improvement of his dump child till 1994 which was the

time limit indicated by the appellant for the girl to start speaking. As the child

remained the same, complainant began to entertain doubts. 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

yagyan. But unfortunately nothing

of such thing brought about any change B

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 C

committed by the appellant, according to the complainant. Hence a complaint

was lodged with the police for cheating.

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 D

among devotees of God." According to the appellant, this was not a case of

cheating or breach of trust. But the Magistrate was not prepared to give

accord to the said report. On 2-8-1995 he ordered for "reinvestigation of the

case".

I

Pursuant to the said order, the police reinvestigated and filed a report E

on 15-9-1997 holding that appellant has committed the offence under Section

420 of the IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on receipt of

the said report and issued warrant of arrest against the appellant.

Appellant moved the High Court for quashing the proceedings

on two F

grounds. First is that the Magistrate has no

juri$diction 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.

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 appellant would

only have offered to invoke through rituals and prayers.

G

If somebody offers his prayers to God for healing the sick, there cannot H

874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A normally be any element of fraud. But if he represents to another that he has

divine powers and either directly

or indirectly makes that another person

believe that he has such divine powers, it

is inducement referred to Section

415

of the 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. Court can in such a situation

B presume that the offence of cheating

-falling within the ambit of Section 420

of the IPC has been committed. It is for the accused, in such a situation, to

rebut the presumption.

So the contention that the allegations do not disclose an offence under

C Section 420 of the 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

D 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.

E 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

F all the potential accused to be afforded

-~ith the opportunity of being heard.

As law does not require it, we would not burden the Magistrate with such

an obligation.

G

For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to interfere with

the order

passed by the Magistrate. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

RC.K. Appeal dismissed.

-