The Supreme Court has recently delivered a significant verdict, shedding light on the nuances of what constitutes cheating in the context of marriage proposals. The apex court was adjudicating an appeal against a Karnataka High Court order from July 2021, which had dismissed a case against a man accused by a woman of reneging on a marriage proposal.
The case originated when the woman, a lecturer by profession, accused the petitioner of deceit after their planned marriage did not come to fruition. According to her complaint, after their families agreed upon the match, conversations between the two commenced, and her father even advanced Rs 75,000 for a marriage hall booking. However, the marriage was called off when she discovered through a newspaper that the petitioner had married someone else, leading to her lodging a complaint against him and five others for criminal breach of trust and cheating.
Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale observed,
“There can be multiple reasons for initiating a marriage proposal and then the proposal not reaching the desired end. It may in a given case involve cheating; it is possible theoretically yet in order to prove an offence of cheating in such cases 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,”
The High Court had previously quashed the FIR related to criminal breach of trust and severe cheating charges but maintained the accusation of simple cheating under Section 417 against the petitioner. Challenging this decision, the petitioner sought relief from the Supreme Court.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the intention behind the accused’s actions to establish the offence of cheating. The court stated,
“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 from the complaint made by the informant.”
This statement underlines that mere non-fulfillment of a marriage proposal cannot be automatically deemed as cheating unless there is clear evidence that the individual intended to deceive from the outset.
This ruling by the Supreme Court provides crucial legal clarity on the issue, highlighting that the mere act of not following through on a marriage proposal does not automatically amount to cheating in the absence of a proven intent to deceive. The decision has significant implications for similar cases, ensuring that the law is interpreted in a manner that prevents misuse while protecting the rights of individuals against unfounded accusations.
CASE DETAILS:
Case title –Raju Krishna Shedbalkar vs State of Karnataka and anr
Appeared for the accused- Advocates Sharanagouda Patil, Shivprasad Shantanagouda, Shupreeta Sharanagouda, Supreeta Patil and Jyotish Pandey of S-legal Associates.
Appeared for the Karnataka government- Advocates VN Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, M Bangaraswamy, Premnath Mishra and Dhanesh Ieshdhan.
Appeared for the complainant- Advocates Rana Ranjit Singh, Vivek Kumar Singh, Ravish Singh, Akanksha Singh, Sweta Singh, Abhilash Tripayhy and Avijeet Kumar.
