The Madras High Court has set aside the conviction of a man accused of cheating a woman under the pretext of marriage, ruling that a request to defer marriage to settle in a career cannot be termed as a “deceitful act” or a “false promise.”
In the case of Abdul Riyazudeen vs. The Inspector of Police (Crl.A.No.73 of 2018), the Single Bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar allowed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant, overturning the order of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai. The Trial Court had previously acquitted the appellant of rape charges (Section 376 IPC) but convicted him under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cheating, sentencing him to six months of simple imprisonment. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of cheating, noting that the appellant’s request for time to earn and settle down before marriage was a normal expectation.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case was that the appellant and the de facto complainant (PW1) were college mates at the Tamil Nadu Institute of Labour Studies from 2011 to 2014. Their friendship developed into a love affair involving a consensual physical relationship. The prosecution alleged that the appellant promised to marry the victim, citing that his inter-religious family background (father Muslim, mother Hindu) would pose no objection.
Following the completion of their course, when the victim’s family approached the appellant’s parents for marriage, they initially resisted but later agreed, with the condition that the marriage be performed after “five to eight years” once the appellant returned from employment in the Middle East. The victim’s family demanded a written undertaking, which was refused, leading to a commotion. Consequently, an FIR was registered in 2014 for offences under Sections 376 (Rape) and 417 (Cheating) read with 109 IPC.
The Trial Court, in its judgment dated January 22, 2018, acquitted the appellant and his parents of the rape charges but convicted the appellant alone under Section 417 IPC.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant argued that the relationship was mutual, consensual, and known to both families. It was submitted that there was no “false promise” at the inception of the relationship. The counsel contended that the appellant did not refuse to marry the victim; rather, he merely requested time to settle in his life. The defense relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra (2019), arguing that for a promise to be false, it must be given in bad faith with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given.
The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) opposed the appeal, submitting that the appellant had “forced a love affair” and maintained a physical relationship on the specific assurance of marriage. The prosecution argued that the condition to wait for five years was a tactful ply to buy time and that the appellant, having “used the victim for four long years,” showed no genuine interest in the marriage.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar examined the evidence, noting that the appellant and victim had been in a continuous relationship for over four years, moving closely in college and public places, and visiting each other’s homes. The Court observed that the physical relationship was voluntary, a fact confirmed by the victim to the doctor (PW8) and recorded in the Accident Register (Ex.P4).
Regarding the conviction under Section 417 IPC, the Court scrutinized the allegation that the appellant deceived the victim. The Court observed:
“The appellant and his family members not refused for the marriage, they insisted marriage can be performed after five years for the reason that the appellant intended to get employment in Middle East and after making good earnings, thereafter to have his marriage which is a normal expectation of any parent and cannot be faulted with.”
The Court further stated that the insistence by the victim’s family for a written undertaking might have hurt the pride and esteem of the appellant’s family, leading to the refusal of such a condition.
Distinguishing between a false promise and a subsequent inability or postponement, the Court held:
“Seeking time cannot be attributed to be a deceitful act termed as false promise and cheating.”
The Court emphasized that the relationship had been continuous for more than four years and “there cannot be misconception for such long period.”
Decision The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary ingredients for an offence under Section 417 IPC. The Court held:
“It is settled proposition of law that mere refusal to marry would not constitute offence under Section 417 IPC until and unless the requirement under Section 90 IPC is established by the prosecution.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Criminal Appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court in S.C.No.52 of 2015. The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the fine amount paid was ordered to be refunded.
