Legal Review and Analysis of G Prasad Raghavan vs Union Territory of Puducherry 2025 INSC 1221
1. Heading of the Judgment
G. Prasad Raghavan vs. Union Territory of Puducherry
Citation: 2025 INSC 1221
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon'ble Justice Sanjay Karol & Hon'ble Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 [Arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 12380 of 2025]
2. Related Laws and Sections
The judgment primarily deals with the following legal provisions:
Sections 420 (Cheating) and 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – pertaining to discharge of an accused.
Section 34 of the IPC – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
3. Basic Judgment Details
This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant, G. Prasad Raghavan (Accused No. 2), challenging the orders of the Lower Courts that had refused to discharge him from the criminal case. The Trial Court and the High Court had dismissed his application for discharge, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment
The Central Issue
The core legal issue was whether a person (the appellant), who was a minor at the time of the original alleged offence of cheating, can later be implicated in the same crime merely for purchasing the property from the main accused years later, without any other active role or criminal intent.
Factual Matrix and the Appellant's Contention
The case originated from an FIR filed by Ms. Amutha against Accused No. 1, Gunasekaran (the appellant's father). She alleged that in 2015, Gunasekaran fraudulently induced her into an agreement to sell a plot and received a substantial sum of money, despite having no clear title to the property. The investigation led to a chargesheet against both Gunasekaran and his son, the present appellant, G. Prasad Raghavan (Accused No. 2).
The allegation against the appellant was that in 2022, his father executed a sale deed of the disputed property in his favour for a sum of Rs. 60 Lakhs. The prosecution's case was that the appellant, being a student with no independent income, must have been complicit, knowing that his father had not returned the informant's money.
The appellant sought discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC, arguing that:
He was a minor in 2015-16 when the entire transaction and alleged cheating between the informant and his father took place.
He made no representation, gave no inducement, and received no payment from the informant.
Merely purchasing the property in 2022, years after the disputed event, does not constitute the offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust.
The Supreme Court's Reasoning and Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court conducted an in-depth analysis of the ingredients necessary to constitute the alleged offences, particularly Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC.
The Court emphasized that for an offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are:
Deception of a person.
Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property or consent to the retention of any property.
Intentional inducement to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived.
Similarly, for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC, the accused must be entrusted with property or have dominion over it, which is then dishonestly misappropriated or converted.
The Court found that the record was utterly devoid of any material to show that the appellant, as a minor in 2015-16, played any role in the original transaction. There was no allegation that he deceived the informant or was entrusted with her money. His only connection was purchasing the property in 2022.
The Court held that a subsequent purchase of property, by itself, cannot be used to infer participation in a prior, distinct offence of cheating. The prosecution failed to establish any common intention under Section 34 IPC linking the appellant to his father's initial actions. The charges of criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC) were also not substantiated against him.
Final Outcome and Supreme Court's Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the courts below. It issued the following directions:
The order dated 15.03.2024 of the Trial Court and the order dated 15.04.2025 of the High Court were quashed and set aside concerning the appellant.
The discharge application filed by the appellant under Section 239 of the CrPC was allowed.
All criminal proceedings pursuant to FIR No. 0032 of 2022 and the consequent chargesheet were quashed against the appellant, G. Prasad Raghavan.
5. MCQs Based on the Judgment
Question 1: What was the primary reason the Supreme Court discharged G. Prasad Raghavan (Accused No. 2) from the criminal case?
a) The main accused, his father, admitted his guilt.
b) The informant withdrew her complaint against him.
c) He was a minor at the time of the original transaction and played no role in the alleged cheating.
d) The sale deed executed in his favour in 2022 was found to be forged.
Answer: c) He was a minor at the time of the original transaction and played no role in the alleged cheating.
Question 2: The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against the appellant primarily because?
a) The investigation by the CBCID was faulty.
b) The essential ingredients of the alleged offences under IPC were not made out against him.
c) The case involved a civil dispute and should not have been criminalized.
d) The appellant had already repaid the money to the informant.
Answer: b) The essential ingredients of the alleged offences under IPC were not made out against him.
Blog Posts
