Refusal to marry does not constitute cheating under Section 417 IPC

Madras High Court Acquits Man Accused of Cheating in Promise of Marriage Case Court rules that mere refusal to marry does not constitute cheating unless the promise was made in bad faith.

In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court has set aside the conviction of Abdul Riyazudeen, who was sentenced for cheating under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) following accusations of breaking a promise to marry. The court ruled that a mere refusal to marry does not amount to cheating unless it is proven that the promise was made in bad faith with no intention of fulfillment.

The case originated when the complainant, a former classmate of Abdul Riyazudeen, alleged that he had engaged in a romantic relationship with her under the false pretense of marriage. The two had developed a close relationship while studying at the Tamil Nadu Institute of Labour Studies from 2011 to 2014. The prosecution claimed that Riyazudeen had promised marriage, and based on this assurance, a physical relationship ensued.

However, the defense successfully argued that the relationship was consensual and mutual, with both parties fully aware of the consequences. The defense further contended that the request for a delay in marriage was not a refusal but rather a practical decision to allow the appellant to stabilize his career in the Middle East before settling down.

The High Court, presided over by Justice M. Nirmal Kumar, highlighted that the prosecution failed to establish any deceitful intent on the part of the appellant at the time the promise of marriage was made. Citing the principles laid down in previous Supreme Court judgments, the court emphasized that for an act to qualify as cheating under Section 417 IPC, the promise must have been false from the outset, made in bad faith, and should have influenced the complainant's decision significantly.

The court also noted that the complainant and the appellant had a continuous consensual relationship for over four years, which negated the argument of misconception of fact. The trial court's conviction was based on the erroneous interpretation that requesting time for marriage amounted to a deceitful act.

This judgment underscores the legal distinction between a mere breach of promise and criminal deceit, emphasizing that not every failed relationship can be construed as an offense under the cheating laws.

Bottom Line:

Mere refusal to marry does not constitute cheating under Section 417 IPC unless the prosecution establishes elements under Section 90 IPC, including false promise of marriage made in bad faith with no intention of adhering to it.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 417, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 90

Abdul Riyazudeen v. Inspector of Police, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2811131