Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday quashed a cheating case filed against a woman by her future father-in-law. The woman had eloped days before the marriage, prompting the prospective father-in-law to file the case.

The division bench of the High Court, comprising Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale, ruled that there was no intention on the woman's part to deceive anyone. The bench also quashed the FIR filed against the woman's parents and brother.

The woman, her parents, and her brother were booked under Sections 417 (punishment for cheating), 418 (cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 500 (defamation) of Indian Penal Code.

The bench observed that the case of a young woman is regrettable who went with her parents’ decision to get married.

“There is no whiff of any dishonesty or intention to deceive in any of the statements of the witnesses as recorded by the Police. It is a regrettable case of a hapless young woman who went along with her parents’ decision to marry Mr. Y but at the last minute developed cold feet to enter a charade of a marriage,” the order reads.

The groom’s family contended that they had spent a substantial amount of money, approximately Rs. 162,000, on wedding preparations. However, the bench stated that the money spent by both families was voluntary.

The bench further observed that the woman’s reluctance to confide in her parents about her relationship cannot be construed as "cheating" under the IPC, nor can it justify a prosecution against her.

The bench further said, “The decision to remain silent can at best be injudicious but not dishonest. To make out an offence under cheating the intention to cheat or deceive should be right there from the beginning,” the order reads.

The high court noted that no case was made out for any cognizable offence, but it did acknowledge that offences under Sections 417, 418, and 500 of the IPC could potentially be made out against the applicants. The court, therefore, granted liberty to the prosecution to proceed with those charges.

Case title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra