'Not Cheating Unless Intentional': SC On Cheating In Marriage Proposals

A bench comprising of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale delivered a noteworthy judgment concerning allegations of cheating in the context of marriage proposals, shedding light on the complex legal aspects surrounding the offense of cheating under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, stressing the critical requirement of showcasing intention to deceive or cheat from the outset.

Context and Background

The case under scrutiny originated from an appeal filed against a July 2021 order of the Karnataka High Court. The man, the petitioner, had promised a woman's family marriage but did not materialise it. Eventually, the woman filed an FIR against six people, including him.  

The petitioner contested the decision, which, while quashing the case against other family members, upheld the charges against him. Central to the allegations was the claim by a woman, purportedly cheated by the petitioner due to the failure to consummate the proposed marriage.

Legal Discourse on Marriage Proposals

While dispensing the judgement, the bench of justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale said that there could be multiple reasons for a marriage proposal not turning into reality. The charge of cheating is valid only if there is evidence to prove that there was an intention to cheat from the beginning. 

The bench opined, "There can be multiple reasons for initiating a marriage proposal and then the proposal not reaching the desired end. In a given case, it may involve cheating; it is possible, but in order to prove an offence of cheating in such cases, the prosecution must have reliable and trustworthy evidence in order to first prosecute such a case. There is no such evidence before the prosecution, and therefore no offence under Section 417 is also made out."

Why was the man charged for cheating?

The court made this judgement while hearing an appeal filed by the man against the July 2021 Karnataka High Court order in which the charges of cheating were quashed against his family members but not him. 

The woman, who was working as a lecturer, filed a complaint against the man for not materialising his marriage proposal. An FIR was lodged against six people under Section 406 (criminal breach of trust), 417 (cheating), and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the complaint, the woman's father was looking for a prospective groom for her. He zeroed in on the man as a prospective match. Then, the woman and the man started talking over the phone, and the woman's father had paid ₹75,000 in advance to a marriage hall.  However, later, the woman learned from some news reports that the man had married someone else. It was then that she lodged an FIR against him and his family members. 

What did the Karnataka High Court say?

Then, the six accused in the FIR moved the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which a dispute of a civil nature is given a "cloak of criminal offence". 

Consequently, the high court quashed the charges against all the accused under Sections 406 and 420. However, it declined to relieve the man from the charges under Section 417. Then, the man moved the Supreme Court for relief.

Legal Precedents and Interpretation

Drawing from established legal precedents and jurisprudence, the court reiterated the fundamental principle that the essence of cheating lies in the intention to deceive or mislead. Without conclusive evidence substantiating such intent, the invocation of Section 417 remains untenable.

Relieving the man of all the charges, the Supreme Court said, "Time and again, this Court has reiterated that in order to make out an offence under cheating, the intention to cheat or deceive should be right from the beginning. By no stretch of imagination, this is even reflected in the complaint made by the informant." 

Key Takeaways

• Intent is Paramount: The judgment reaffirms that the cornerstone of any allegation of cheating hinges upon establishing the presence of fraudulent intent.

• Requirement of Substantive Evidence: Mere non-fulfillment of matrimonial promises does not suffice to constitute the offense of cheating. Concrete evidence demonstrating deceptive intent is imperative for a successful prosecution.

• Judicial Prudence Prevails: The verdict exemplifies the meticulous application of legal principles to discern complex issues, ensuring justice is meted out in accordance with established legal norms.

The court concluded and quashed the cheating case against the man, saying the complaint itself reveals that there was no intention to cheat.