Telangana HC Clarifies When Breach of Marriage Vow Isn't Cheating
According to the complainant, he withdrew his promise in the presence of his friends. He is said to have acknowledged his mistake and reaffirmed his intention to marry her. Despite this, he once again reneged on his promise.
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court noted that an unfulfilled promise of marriage did not meet the statutory threshold for criminal prosecution under the charges of cheating. The court reiterated that unless there was an indication of dishonest inducement of delivering a property or procuring material gains or altering a valuable security, the cheating case could not be sustained against the accused for breach of promise of marriage.
Justice N. Tukaramji was dealing with a petition filed by a resident of Karmanghat, Hyderabad, challenging the criminal proceedings registered against him in 2019 on a complaint of a woman, who alleged that former had breached the promise of marriage. According to her, in 2016, when they were in college, the petitioner had promised he would marry her, after obtaining consent from his parents.
According to the complainant, he withdrew his promise in the presence of his friends. He is said to have acknowledged his mistake and reaffirmed his intention to marry her. Despite this, he once again reneged on his promise.
Based on her complaint, the police registered criminal case on charges of cheating and trial before the LB Nagar court is pending. Seeking quashing the case of cheating, the petitioner approached the High Court.
The court made it clear that to constitute an offence of cheating, it was essential to establish that the accused not only engaged in cheating but also dishonestly induced the victim to deliver property or alter a valuable security. In the given case, the petitioner merely promised to marry her and later retracted that promise, attributing his change of position to the opinion of his parents and relatives.
Importantly, the complaint did not allege any act that evidences a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the promise, nor was there any indication that the petitioner induced the complainant to deliver property or to act in a manner that she would not have otherwise done but for such deception. As such, the foundational elements of cheating are not met, the court said.