Back
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Guluk Kathar – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam and Mr. VA Chowdhury, learned Amicus for the respondent No.2.
2. The present Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed assailing the judgment and sentence dated 14.12.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon in connection with CR Case No. 87/2008, whereby the present petitioner/accused was convicted under Section 417 IPC and was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for 2 (two) months.
3. The further challenge is made against the appellate judgment and order dated 09.04.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, Assam in Criminal Appeal Case No. 4/2011, whereby the judgment and sentence dated 14.12.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon was upheld.
4. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that:-
(i) The complainant/victim was in love relationship with the accused/petitioner sinc
A long-term consensual relationship does not constitute cheating under Section 417 IPC unless deception or misconception of fact is proven.
Consent in a love relationship cannot be deemed vitiated unless proven that it was based on a false promise made in bad faith, and mere refusal to marry does not constitute cheating under Section 417....
Conviction under Section 417 IPC requires proof of a fraudulent promise to marry which was false from the inception; mere failure to marry does not constitute deception in consensual relationships.
Promise to marry does not negate consent given out of love; misleading promises alone do not constitute misconception of fact for statutory cheating.
The validity of consent in cases involving a false promise to marry and the application of Section 90 of IPC to determine the impact of a false promise on consent.
Refusal to marry after a consensual relationship does not constitute cheating under Section 417 IPC without evidence of fraudulent intent at the time of the promise.
A false promise of marriage, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given, would constitute a misconception of fact vitiating the woman's consent.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
