Telangana High Court promise to marry cheating case ruling clarifies that a failed relationship without initial fraudulent intent does not constitute cheating under IPC Sections 417 and 420. (File Photo)The Telangana High Court has ruled that a failed personal relationship does not attract criminal liability under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the absence of fraudulent intent from the beginning and quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of cheating after allegedly failing to fulfil a promise of marriage.Justice N Tukaramji concluded that the case was a fit instance for the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and stated that “continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law”.The petitioner, a 28-year-old fisherman from Peddapalli district, sought the quashing of proceedings against him pending on the file before the principal judicial first class magistrate, Godavarikhani.The case originated from a 2022 complaint filed by a woman who alleged that the petitioner had pursued her since 2018 under the guise of love.According to the complaint, the two of them maintained a relationship for approximately five years. However, when the woman insisted on marriage, the petitioner reportedly refused. Despite a community mediation in October 2022 where he initially agreed to the union, he later backed out, leading to charges under sections 417 and 420 of the IPC for cheating.The petitioner’s counsel argued that the relationship was consensual and lacked any element of “dishonest or fraudulent intention” at its inception. He contended that the complaint did not disclose any element of inducement resulting in the delivery of property or any legally cognizable harm as contemplated under Section 415 of the IPC and added that the dispute, at best, reflected a failed personal relationship and does not attract criminal liability.The woman’s counsel argued that the petitioner’s conduct squarely falls within the ambit of cheating, and that the question of intention is a matter of evidence to be adjudicated at trial. He urged that premature quashing would prejudice the case of the complainant.Story continues below this adThe court noted that there are no allegations that the petitioner induced the de facto complainant to deliver any property or valuable security, which is an essential ingredient for attracting Section 420 IPC. The court agreed, noting that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not satisfy the statutory requirements for cheating under Section 415 IPC.The court further observed that “the complaint does not disclose any material to prima facie establish that the petitioner had a dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the relationship. On the contrary, the duration and nature of the association indicate a consensual relationship that subsequently failed.”Justice Tukaramji emphasised that for a criminal charge of cheating to stick, the intention to deceive must exist at the very start of the transaction. He noted that it was well settled that “a mere breach of a promise to marry, in the absence of initial fraudulent intent, does not constitute the offence of cheating under Sections 417 or 420 IPC.”The court held that the present case squarely falls within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal case, wherein the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, “do not disclose the commission of any offence, and where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive.”Story continues below this adThe court allowed the petition and officially quashed the proceedings pending before the principal judicial first class magistrate at Godavarikhani.Rahul V Pisharody is Assistant Editor with the Indian Express Online and has been reporting for IE on various news developments from Telangana since 2019. He is currently reporting on legal matters from the Telangana High Court. Rahul started his career as a journalist in 2011 with The New Indian Express and worked in different roles at the Hyderabad bureau for over 8 years. As Deputy Metro Editor, he was in charge of the Hyderabad bureau of the newspaper and coordinated with the team of city reporters, district correspondents, other centres and internet desk for over three years. A native of Palakkad in Kerala, Rahul has a Master's degree in Communication (Print and New Media) from the University of Hyderabad and a Bachelor's degree in Business Management from PSG College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore. ... Read More © The Indian Express Pvt Ltd