Supreme Court: Minor at Time of Transaction Cannot Be Prosecuted for Cheating:

Supreme Court: Minor at Time of Transaction Cannot Be Prosecuted for Cheating An FIR was filed by Ms. Amutha in Puducherry alleging that Accused No. 1 cheated her in a property sale transaction. She paid Rs. 92 lakh between 2015 and 2016 based on his representation of ownership, but later found that he had no title. Thereafter, Gunasekaran executed a sale deed in 2022, transferring the same property to his son, Accused No. 2, the appellant in this appeal before SC. The appellant, who was a minor at the time of the challenged fraudulent transaction, was later charge-sheeted under Sections 420, 406, 294(b), and 506(i) IPC read with Section 34 IPC. His discharge application under Section 239 CrPC was dismissed by both the trial court and the High Court. The appellant contended that he had no role in the 2015-2016 transaction, as he was a minor then and made no representation or inducement. He only purchased the property from his father in 2022, and hence, no ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust were made out. The prosecution argued that the transfer to him was intended to defeat the informant’s claim. Issue Raised: Whether the appellant, who was a minor at the time of the alleged offence, could be prosecuted for cheating and other offences solely for having later purchased the same property from his father. SC's Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant. It held that the FIR and charge-sheet did not disclose any material to establish that the appellant participated in or was aware of the alleged fraudulent transaction between the complainant and his father. The alleged inducement and payment occurred in 2015-2016 when the appellant was a minor. No representation or receipt of money by the appellant was alleged. The only act attributed to him was the purchase of the property in 2022, which did not constitute an offence under Sections 420 or 406 IPC. The trial court and High Court erred in rejecting the discharge application despite absence of prima facie material. Therefore, the Apex Court quashed the orders of the Madras High Court and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry were quashed. The discharge application under Section 239 CrPC was allowed, and FIR No. 0032/2022 and subsequent proceedings against the appellant were set aside. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below