The Madras High Court has ruled that requesting time to settle a career before marriage does not amount to a false promise. The judgment clarifies legal boundaries under Section 417 IPC, protecting consensual relationships from criminal liability.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: In a ruling that clarifies the legal interpretation of “false promise of marriage,” the Madras High Court has overturned the conviction of a man accused of cheating a woman under Section 417 IPC, holding that a request to defer marriage for career settlement cannot be construed as deceit.
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar set aside the order of the Mahila Court, Chennai, which had convicted the appellant for cheating while acquitting him of rape charges.
The High Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of cheating, emphasizing that seeking time before marriage is a normal and reasonable expectation, not a fraudulent act.
Case Background
The case dates back to 2011–2014, when the appellant and the complainant were college mates at the Tamil Nadu Institute of Labour Studies. Their friendship evolved into a mutual love affair, which included a consensual physical relationship.
The prosecution’s narrative included:
- The appellant allegedly assured the victim that inter-religious differences in his family would not pose any objection.
- When the victim’s family proposed marriage after their course ended, the appellant’s parents initially hesitated but later agreed, on the condition that marriage be postponed by 5–8 years to allow the appellant to work in the Middle East and settle financially.
- A demand from the victim’s family for a written undertaking led to disagreements, which eventually resulted in an FIR being filed for offences under Sections 376 and 417 IPC.
In 2018, the Trial Court acquitted the appellant of rape charges but convicted him under Section 417 IPC for cheating.
Arguments Before the High Court
Appellant’s Arguments
The defense argued that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was consensual, mutual, and known to both families. They maintained that there was no false promise at the inception of the relationship and that the appellant did not refuse marriage; he had only requested a reasonable period of time to settle in his career before marrying. The defense also relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra (2019), which established that a promise can only constitute cheating if it is made in bad faith, with no intention of being fulfilled at the time it was made.
Prosecution’s Stand
The prosecution contended that the appellant had induced the victim into a long-term physical relationship based solely on the promise of marriage. They argued that the condition to wait for five to eight years was merely a tactic to avoid commitment and that, over the course of four years, the appellant had “used the victim” without any genuine intention of marrying her.
High Court’s Analysis
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar conducted a comprehensive review of the evidence and previous judgments. The Court highlighted crucial observations:
1. The Relationship Was Voluntary
The victim herself confirmed to the doctor (PW8) that the relationship was consensual, a fact recorded in the Accident Register (Ex.P4).
2. Requesting Time Is Not Deceit
The Court stated:
“The appellant and his family members not refused for the marriage, they insisted marriage can be performed after five years… which is a normal expectation of any parent and cannot be faulted with.”
3. No Evidence of False Promise
The Court distinguished between:
- A false promise made at inception, and
- A later change in circumstances or postponement of marriage.
It observed:
“Seeking time cannot be attributed to be a deceitful act termed as false promise and cheating.”
4. Long-Term Relationship Eliminates Misconception
The judge noted that a relationship spanning over four years cannot be characterized as one initiated through fraudulent misrepresentation.
5. Mere Refusal to Marry Is Not Cheating
Citing Section 90 IPC, the Court reiterated:
“Mere refusal to marry would not constitute offence under Section 417 IPC until and unless the requirement under Section 90 IPC is established.”
The Madras High Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 417 IPC, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. Additionally, the Court ordered that the fine amount paid by the appellant be refunded.
Case Title:
Abdul Riyazudeen Vs. The Inspector of Police
Crl.A.No.73 of 2018
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read Our Reports on False Promise of Marriage
