Breaching promise to marry is not a crime

In a recent judgement by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri Venkatesh  and others v The State of Karnataka, the Court reiterated that not following through the promise of marriage would not amount to the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC. 

The Single Judge Bench of Justice K Natarajan, while quashing the FIR filed against Venkatesh and his family members, said that, “absolutely there is no ingredient stated by her in order to show that there is a criminal intention of cheating by petitioner No1  and thereby, he has promised to marry her but has broken his promise…”

Facts of the Case: 

A complaint was filed by the Respondent No2. in the Police Station of Ramamurthy Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

It is alleged that the victim came to know the Petitioner no 1 about 8 years ago. Afterward, both fell in love and decided to marry. However, later he left her and married someone else who was approved by his family  who supported his marriage. The petitioner as a result filed the case against the petitioner and his family members for cheating her.

The petitioner, i.e. The man’s advocate contended that, as per the Section 415 of the IPC, the mere promise to marry and then not fulfilling that promise cannot be said to be cheating, thus there is no Section for invoking the said Section.

It was also contended by the petitioner that, the police after filing the case in may 2020, never initiated any investigation even when the petitioner presented himself before the police. The Respondent filed the case only to harass the petitioner. Thus, he pleaded for the FIR to be quashed.

Judgement:  

After hearing the arguments of the parties, the Bench observed that 

• The respondent no 2 filed the complaint against the petitioner stating that he fell in love with her and promised to marry her. Later, he failed to marry her while marrying someone else and other petitioners helped him to marry.
• While reading the plaint one can infer that it does not have any ingredient of Section 415 of IPC, which shows that accused persons have committed offence under Section 420 of the IPC, while also stating that the accused threatened her under Section 506
• There was no incident or evidence presented by the Respondent which showed that the petitioner had criminal intention to cheat the respondent, while promising to marry her and then not fulfilling it.

Based on the judgement given by the Madras High Court in the case of K.U. Prabhu Raj v State, the court decided that 

-at least three essential ingredients constituting an offence of cheating which are-

• Deception  of any person
• Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver a property or given consent that anyone will retain any property
• To  intentionally induce that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do if he/ she was not so deceived, such act commission is likely to cause harm to the physical, mental, emotional health or reputation ot f that person. 

The learned counsel for the second respondent reiterated that, had the petitioner not falsely promised her, she would have married someone else and settled down in life. Thus, the petitioner clearly committed the offence of cheating. It was observed by the Court that this was not the case. The Court referred to the judgement given by the Calcutta high court in the case of Abhoy Pradhan v State of W.B., the mere promise to marry and then not fulfilling that promise is not cheating at all.

In this case, there is no material which proves that due to the promise made by the petitioner, the respondent  did anything which could cause damage to body or mind or to the property or reputation of the respondent. Thus, it would not make an offence under Section 417 or 420 0f the IPC.

In the Case of S.W. Palantikar v The State of Bihar and Another (2002), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere breach of contract would not result in any criminal prosecution unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction and at the time when the offence is said to be committed.

The Court allowed the petition and thus quashed the FIR filed by the Ramamurthy Police Station.

Lead India provides a wide pool of experienced lawyers who deal with cases related to various legal issues involving family law, criminal cases, civil cases, etc. Assistance in following through with paperwork for various legal procedures is also provided.