A mere promise to marry, followed by a breach, does not constitute an offence of cheating under Section 420 of IPC unless there is evidence of deception, fraudulent inducement, and intention to cause harm.

ORDER

1. This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in Cr. No. 157/2020 registered by the Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 420, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State.

Respondent No.2 served and unrepresented.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2, the Police registered a case on 03.05.2020 wherein, it is alleged that the about 8 years back she came to know petitioner No.1 and both of them fell in love with each other and petitioner No.1 agreed to marry her. Subsequently, he left her and said to have married some other lady as his family members supported his marriage with some other lady. Therefore, she filed a complaint against petitioner No.1 and his other family members for having cheated her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that mere promise of marriage and not marrying her cannot be said to be a cheating as per the provision of Section 415 of IPC. Absolutely there is no ingredient for invoking the said section. After the filing of the case in May-2020, absolutely there no investigation by the Police in spite of the petitioners appearing before the Police after obtaining the bail and there is no progress. Respondent No.2 has filed the complaint only to harass the petitioners. Hence, prayed for quashing the FIR.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the same.

6. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, admittedly respondent No.2 filed complaint stating that accused No. I/petitioner No.1 fell in love with her and he has promised to marry her. Subsequently, he failed to marry her and he married somebody else and other petitioners said to have helped petitioner No.1 to marry some other lady. A plain reading of the complaint would reveal that it does not attract any ingredient of Section 415 of IPC in order to show that the accused persons have committed the offence under Section 420 of IPC and also she has just stated that the accused have also threatened her in order to attract Section 506 of IPC. Absolutely there is no ingredient stated by her in order to show that there is a criminal intention of cheating by petitioner No.1 and thereby, he has promised to marry her but has broken his promise.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a Single Bench judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, in the case of K.U.Prabhu Raj Vs. State by Sub Inspector of Police, A.W.P.S. Tambaram and another reported in 2012-3-L.W.770 wherein, the Court has held at paragraphs 16 and 17 as under:

"16. A cursory perusal of the above provision would make it clear that there are at least three essential ingredients constituting an offence of cheating which should be made out from the materials available on record. They are as follows:-

'(1) Deception of any person;

(2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person

(i) To deliver any property to any person or; (ii) To consent that any person shall retain any property, or and

(3) Intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage orharm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.'

17. The learned counsel for the second respondent would further submit that the offence involved in this case falls within the ambit of the third limb of Section 415 I.P.C as enumerated above. According to the learned counsel, but for the promise made by the petitioner, the daughter of the second respondent would have married someone-else and settled down in her life. Thus, according to him, the petitioner has committed a clear offence of cheating. In my considered opinion, it is not so. As has been held by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Abhoy Pradhan v. State of W.B case (cited s