In Mir Nagvi Askari v. CBI, (2009) 15 SCC 643, it was ruled that while drawing an inference from the materials brought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charge of criminal conspiracy had been proved or not, it must be borne in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difficult, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same.
In Mohd. Amin v. CBI, (2008) 15 SCC 49, it was held as under:
“That for proving a charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all the conspirators know each and every detail of the conspiracy so long as they are co-participators in the main object of conspiracy. It is also not necessary that all the conspirators should participate from the inception of conspiracy to its end. If there is unity of object or purpose, all participating at different stages of the crime will be guilty of conspiracy.” Harpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 734.
Ingredients of Section 361 Indian Penal Code cannot be satisfied in a case where the minor having attained the age of discretion, alleged to have been taken by the accused person, left her guardian’s protection knowingly (having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing) and voluntarily joins the accused person. In such a case, it cannot be said that the victim has been taken away from the keeping of her lawful guardian.
So as to show an act of criminality on the part of the accused, some kind of inducement held out by the accused person or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of the guardian, is required to be shown. Conclusion might be different in case evidence is collected by the investigating agency to establish that though immediately prior to the minor leaving the guardian’s protection, no active part was played by the accused, he had at some earlier stage solicited or persuaded the minor to do so. Vishal Jaiswal v. State of U.P., 2016 (96) ACC 802.
The settled proposition of law is that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In other words for the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 can be said to have been made out. Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293.