IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J.
Prashanth Patel - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 4118 of 2022
Decided On : 12-05-2022
Anticipatory Bail - Offences Punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC - [Section 438 of the Cr.P.C] - [Sections 417, 420 of the IPC] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to breach of promise of marriage and the offense of cheating under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC. It highlighted the interpretation of the law in previous cases and concluded that breach of promise of marriage does not attract the offense of cheating under the mentioned sections. This influenced the court's decision to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with stringent conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail for offenses punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC. The complainant alleges that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage but later refused to marry her, leading to the registration of the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner would be entitled to anticipatory bail based on the interpretation of the law related to breach of promise of marriage and the offense of cheating under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of breach of promise of marriage and the applicability of the offense of cheating under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the law in previous cases, which concluded that breach of promise of marriage does not attract the offense of cheating under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Criminal Petition and ordered the petitioner to be released on bail with stringent conditions.
JUDGMENT
Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of Crime No. 64 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 417 of the IPC for it having been turned down by the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3357 of 2022. Petitioner is accused No. 1 in the subject crime.
2. Heard Sri. S. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. H.S. Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State,
3. Brief facts germane are as follows:
Ms. Ruthu Helan registers a complaint against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 417 and 420 of the IPC. The allegation in the complaint was that the petitioner and the complainant were acquaintances who met when they were working in the same establishment and the petitioner was her team leader. It is alleged that the petitioner proposed to marry the complainant which was initially rejected by the complainant but later on several promises being made in front of family and friends by the petitioner, she acceded to the request of marriage with the petitioner. After such assurances, it is alleged that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions and at several places. After all this, it is alleged, the petitioner refused to marry the complainant and refused to accompany her to any social gatherings. When the petitioner refused to marry the complainant, complaint aforesaid is registered on 21.03.2022 in Crime No. 64 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC.
4. On registration of the crime, the petitioner files a petition seeking anticipatory bail at the hands of the learned Sessions Judge who by his order dated 13-04-2022 declines to grant anticipatory bail on the ground that prima facie case is made out by the prosecution against the petitioner and the investigation is yet to get completed and there is also a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner is likely to threaten witnesses. It is the rejection of anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend that whatever acts that have taken place between the petitioner and the complainant were all consensual. Breach of promise of marriage cannot become an offence under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC is the settled law laid down by this Court in D. Ramesh Sinha v. State Of Karnataka-Criminal Revision Petition No. 233 of 2020 which has been reiterated in the case of Venkatesh And Others. v. State of Karnataka-Criminal Petition No. 5865 of 2021 and would submit that the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that since the matter is still under investigation and the petitioner may be required for custodial interrogation at any time and he is to be taken into custody and as such, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and would seek to defend the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The complainant in her complaint narrates that the petitioner and the complainant had physical relationship at several places from October, 2020 to November, 2021 on the promise of marriage. The places that they travelled and had physical relationship are narrated in graphic details in the complaint. The crux of the complaint is that the petitioner has cheated the complainant and had sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage and, therefore, breach of promise of marriage has become a crime in Crime No. 64 of 2022 for o
Breach of promise of marriage does not attract the offense of cheating under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC.
The seriousness of the offence and prima facie evidence from the FIR are crucial factors in deciding on anticipatory bail.
The consensual nature of a relationship and the potential impact of granting anticipatory bail on the investigation were central to the court's decision.
The court's decision was based on the consideration that the offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and the conditions imposed to address the apprehension of absconding or ....
A promise of marriage does not constitute rape if the relationship was consensual and there is no evidence of a false promise from the beginning.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that simply establishing a physical relationship on the promise of marriage would not attract the offense under Section 376 IPC.
A married person cannot induce another married person into a physical relationship on a false promise of marriage.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.