In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court has set aside the conviction of a man who was earlier found guilty of cheating under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly making a false promise of marriage. The court clarified that a mere refusal to marry does not constitute cheating unless the criteria under Section 90 IPC, which deals with consent obtained under misconception of fact, are met.
The verdict was delivered by Justice Arun Dev Choudhury in Crl.Rev.P./265/2012, where the petitioner had challenged the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon, and the Sessions Judge, Morigaon, Assam, both of which had upheld his conviction.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a criminal complaint filed by a woman, who alleged that she was in a relationship with the accused since 2004-05. According to her, the accused promised marriage and engaged in sexual relations with her, leading to her pregnancy in 2007. She further claimed that the accused pressured her to undergo an abortion while assuring her that he would marry her in the first week of Magh (January-February). However, on January 30, 2008, he refused to marry her and suggested she marry someone else, prompting her to file a case.
Based on these allegations, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon, convicted the accused under Section 417 IPC on December 14, 2010, sentencing him to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000, with an additional two-month sentence in case of default. The conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge, Morigaon, in Criminal Appeal Case No. 4/2011 on April 9, 2012.
Key Legal Issues Before the High Court
The primary legal question before the High Court was:
1. Does a refusal to marry after a prolonged relationship and sexual intimacy amount to ‘cheating’ under Section 417 IPC?
2. Does the complainant’s consent to the physical relationship fall under ‘misconception of fact’ as per IPC Section 90?
Arguments Before the Court
Defence (for the accused)
– The petitioner’s counsel argued that the prosecution failed to establish deception at the inception of the relationship, a necessary element for a conviction under Section 417 IPC.
– He contended that both individuals were adults in a consensual relationship for over four years, and there was no evidence to prove that the accused had no intention of marrying her from the beginning.
– Citing Supreme Court precedents, he stated that a promise to marry, even if later broken, does not amount to cheating unless it was made with fraudulent intent from the outset.
Prosecution (for the complainant)
– The Amicus Curiae argued that the accused lured the complainant into a sexual relationship with a false promise of marriage and later abandoned her.
– He contended that this amounted to misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC, thus vitiating her consent.
– He relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Promod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, where it was held that a false promise to marry, given in bad faith with no intention to fulfill it, can constitute ‘misconception of fact’ and lead to a conviction for cheating.
Gauhati High Court’s Observations
After reviewing the evidence and legal precedents, Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held:
“Mere refusal to marry would not constitute an offence under Section 417 IPC unless deception at the inception is proved.”
The court found no evidence suggesting that the accused never intended to marry the complainant from the outset. Instead, it observed that:
“In the case in hand, there had been a long love relationship of four years between the petitioner and the victim, and they had a physical relationship. Both were majors. There is no evidence to establish that the relationship and physical intimacy were under a misconception of fact or that the consent of the victim was based on fraudulent representation of marriage.”
Further, the court emphasized that for an act to qualify as cheating under Section 417 IPC, the prosecution must establish that consent was obtained under fraud or misconception as per Section 90 IPC. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that the complainant consented solely due to a false promise of marriage.
Final Verdict
The High Court concluded that the conviction was not legally sustainable due to the absence of clear evidence of fraud at the inception of the relationship. The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner, discharging his bail bond.
“Since the prosecution failed to meet the criteria under Section 90 IPC, the impugned judgments and orders are vitiated by perversity and cannot withstand legal scrutiny,” the court ruled.
Additionally, the court appreciated the assistance of the Amicus Curiae and directed that he be compensated as per legal aid norms.
