The Supreme Court recently quashed a cheating case registered against an individual for allegedly covering the rear number plate of his vehicle. The Court held that a mere apprehension on the part of the police that the number plate was concealed to evade traffic challans does not constitute the offence of cheating.

“The mere apprehension of the police that the rear number plate was covered in order to avoid challans, or that in case a crime was committed, it would be difficult to trace out the offender is at best, speculative…The only allegation against the appellant is that he was travelling on his Activa scooty with a black mask covering his rear number plate. There is no material on record to show that such an act was done with a dishonest intention, or that such an act induced a person and caused any wrongful gain or loss.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.

The Court said that concealing or hiding the number plate would, at best, invite penalty under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ("MV Act"), but cannot be categorised as a criminal offence.

“The regulatory breach of obstructing the number plate under the MV Act and rules thereunder cannot be dressed as an offence under Section 420 of the IPC without establishing the essential ingredients as required.”, the Court observed.

The factual background, in brief, was that the appellant was driving a black Honda Activa with the rear number plate covered with a black mask.

The complainant, being on patrol duty, stopped and apprehended him, leading to registration of an FIR against him under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 80(a) of the MV Act, alleging that he had deceived the police by attempting to avoid traffic challans. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed, upon which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate.

The petitioner-accused moved to the Telangana High Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of an FIR. Aggrieved by the High Court's dismissal of his quashing plea, noting that the prima facie case was made out against him, the petitioner moved to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned order, the order pronounced by Justice Masih quashed the pending cheating case against the petitioner, noting that no ingredients for the offence of cheating were established.

The essential ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC are:

(1) Dishonest intention

(2) Inducement of a person, and

(3) Delivery of property, or alteration or destruction of valuable property.

“We are further of the view that the selective covering of only the rear number plate, leaving the front plate visible and legible, is itself inconsistent with any planned scheme to evade identification or detection, and goes against the existence of a dishonest intention as alleged… the allegations, even if taken at face value do not constitute the offence of cheating and continuation of proceedings against the appellant would amount to abuse of process of law.”, the Court said.

In terms of the aforesaid, the petition was allowed, with a clarification that the liability imposed under the MV Act upon the petitioner would remain unaffected.

“We clarify that this quashing shall not affect the appellant's liability to pay the penalty under Section 177 of the MV Act, which the appellant is directed to deposit before the concerned authority within one month, if not already done.”, the Court said.

Cause Title: MOHAMMED ABDUL AHAD SHAKER VERSUS STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 754

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, AOR Mrs. Soma Mullick, Adv. Mr. Lakshay Suri, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv.