SC: Minor at time of alleged cheating cannot be prosecuted later—discharge under Section 239 CrPC restored

Case Name: G. Prasad Raghavan v. Union Territory of Puducherry

Citation: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12380 of 2025

Date of Judgment: 10 October 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

Held: The Supreme Court held that where the alleged inducement, receipt of money, and representations occurred solely between the complainant and Accused No. 1 in 2015–2016, and the present appellant (Accused No. 2) was a minor at that time, the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 406, 420, 294(b), 506(i) read with Section 34 IPC are not made out against him. The subsequent 2022 purchase/registration of the property by the appellant from his father (Accused No. 1) does not, by itself, attract criminal liability absent any role in the original transaction or independent acts constituting the alleged offences.

Summary: An FIR for cheating was lodged against Accused No. 1 over a 2015–2016 agreement to sell, with payments allegedly totaling ₹92 lakh. After investigation, a chargesheet named both Accused No. 1 and his son (the appellant). The trial court rejected a discharge plea under Section 239 CrPC; the High Court affirmed. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the FIR and materials referred only to Accused No. 1 regarding inducement and receipt of money, while the appellant—then a minor—had no participation, representation, or receipt. The sole allegation against him was a later purchase in 2022, which, without more, could not supply the missing ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of trust, intimidation, or common intention.

Decision: Appeal allowed. The orders of the trial court and High Court were set aside qua the appellant; his discharge under Section 239 CrPC was directed, and proceedings pursuant to the FIR and chargesheet qua him were quashed.