HC Says Breach of Promise to Marry Without Initial Fraudulent Intent Does Not Constitute Cheating

Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court made it clear that a breach of a promise to marry, in the absence of initial fraudulent intent, would not constitute the offence of cheating. The court agreed with the view that a failed personal relationship would not attract criminal liability, unless there was dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the relationship.

Justice N. Tukaramji of the High Court passed the order in a petition filed by Kalleda Santhosh from Godavarikhani, who requested the court to quash the criminal case registered against him on allegations of cheating. The complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant alleging that Santhosh had maintained a relationship with her for several years on the promise of marriage and later refused to fulfill that promise.

According to the complaint, the relationship began in 2018 and continued for approximately five years. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had emotionally persuaded her into the relationship and remained in contact throughout, but subsequently declined to marry her despite earlier assurances, including during a mediation held in October 2022.

The High Court examined the material on record and referred to Supreme Court precedents, which say that an offence of cheating required fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time the promise was made. Failure to fulfil a promise at a later stage would not attract criminal liability unless it was shown that the promise was false from the outset.

In the case in hand, the court viewed that the relationship between the parties was consensual and extended over a significant period. It found no material to indicate that the petitioner had any fraudulent intention at the inception of the relationship. It also noted the absence of allegations involving inducement to deliver property, which is necessary to attract cheating. Accordingly, the court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.

DGP`s appointment case: TG requests HC for two weeks

Hyderabad:The state government informed the Telangana High Court that it required two weeks for the appointment of the Director-General of Police, based on the panel of officers prepared by the Union Public Service Commission. The court agreed to the A-G`s request and adjourned the matter to April 13.

Advocate-General A. Sudershan Reddy submitted to the court that the government had received the panel of three names from the UPSC on March 12 and that it was under active consideration. He cited the recent Assembly Budget Session as the reason for requiring additional time.

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy was dealing with a petition filed by advocate T. Dhanagopal Rao, who challenged the government`s decision to appoint an ad-hoc DGP, citing Supreme Court guidelines in the ‘Prakash Singh’ case.

During the pendency of the case, the government had sent its proposals for the appointment of a permanent DGP. The High Court had directed the UPSC to take decision by the end of January. Meanwhile, a SLP was filed before the Supreme Court on the appointment of regular DGP in several states, in which the apex court on February 5 had given the UPSC four weeks to comply.

The UPSC’s empanelment committee met on March 11, discussed the list and forwarded three names to the state government the next day. With one name to be selected as DGP, the petitioner requested the High Court to direct the state government to take decision expeditiously. He argued that the reasons cited by the state for the delay were unwarranted.

HC issues contempt notice to IIM-M on student’s interview

Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court has issued contempt notices against Manoj K. Tiwari, director of IIM-Mumbai, and Shashi Kiran Shetty, chairman, for failure to implement the directions concerning admission to the MBA programme at the institute.

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka was dealing with a contempt petition filed by Kataru Satya Sai, 24, a student from Gundla Pochampally, who complained that the institute had not complied with court’s earlier directions to allow him in the personal interview process for admission to the MBA course. He had earlier approached the High Court through a writ petition challenging the action of the institute in not including his name among candidates shortlisted for the personal interview stage.

According to the petitioner, he had secured a qualifying score in CAT-2025 under the general category but was not shortlisted for the interview, while candidates with lower percentiles in the same category were allegedly considered. He contended that such exclusion was arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the admission policy of the institute.

He sought a direction to the authorities to produce the records relating to the shortlisting process and to include his name in the list of candidates for the interview. The High Court had issued interim directions to IIM-M to permit the petitioner for the personal interview.

Justice Bheemapaka, while dealing the contempt petition, directed the IIM-M director and chairman to file their counter-affidavit by April 30. If they respondents failed to do so, they would need to appear in person before the court at 10.30 am on April 30. Any counter-affidavit filed beyond the deadline would not be accepted unless accompanied by costs of `10,000 to the Registrar (Judicial). The court adjourned the matter to April 30.