Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said there can be multiple reasons for initiating a marriage proposal which may not reach the desired outcome, but this does not mean it would to amount to an offence of cheating under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale allowed an appeal filed by Raju Krishna Shedbalkar against the Karnataka High Court's order which declined to quash the proceedings under Section 417 of the IPC.

"We do not see how an offence even under Section 417 of IPC is made out against the present appellant. 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 bench said.

The High Court has quashed the proceedings under Section 406, 420 and 417 against co-accused, members of his family but declined the appellant's plea so far as the offence under Section 417 was concerned.

The girl here lodged the FIR against six persons, including the present appellant. It was stated in the FIR that the informant is M Tech graduate and was working as a lecturer. 

Her elders were searching a suitable bridegroom for her which they found in the present appellant, she claimed. 

The appellant and the informant were thereafter talking to each other on phone and her father had also given Rs 75,000 in advance for the marriage hall, but this marriage never took place as she learnt from a newspaper report that the appellant has in fact married someone else. She then lodged the FIR.

The High Court concluded the present appellant as the girl's father was induced to book a marriage hall by the appellant alone and therefore, there is prima facie material which makes out a case under Section 417 IPC.

"We are afraid that the reasoning by the High Court upholding the proceedings under Section 417 is patently incorrect," the bench said.

The court said the provision showed that the offence of cheating is in two parts. The first is where a person fraudulently or dishonestly deceives another in inducing that person to deliver any property to any person etc. It noted the second part of the offence would be made out if somebody is deceived to do an act which causes damage or harm to that person “in body, mind, or reputation or property is said to have cheated”. 

"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," the bench said.