IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
Prasanna @ Chakravarthy – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No. 15270 of 2023 & Crl.M.P.No. 10215 of 2023
Decided On : 23-08-2023
online matrimonial fraud - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 420, 417, 406, 354, 294(b), 323, 506(ii), TNPHW Act - The court discussed the allegations of online matrimonial fraud and the modus operandi of the accused, highlighting the legal provisions related to cheating, fraudulent inducement, and the need for regulations governing online matrimonial websites.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is accused of swindling money and gold jewels from the defacto complainant under the pretext of marriage. The court found that the petitioner induced the complainant to give him money and jewels, failed to fulfill his promises, and resorted to abusive behavior and threats.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner engaged in online matrimonial fraud, adopted a consistent modus operandi, and had a history of cheating multiple victims using similar tactics.
Issues: The issues revolved around the fraudulent inducement, cheating, and abusive behavior by the accused in the context of online matrimonial fraud.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for regulations governing online matrimonial websites to prevent fraudulent activities and protect prospective individuals from falling victim to such fraud. It highlighted the legal provisions related to cheating and fraudulent inducement under the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The criminal original petition for pre-arrest bail was dismissed, indicating that the petitioner was not entitled to relief at the preliminary stage of the case.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner/accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the Respondent Police based on the complaint lodged by one Dr.xxxxxx D/o.yyyyy for alleged offence under Sections 420, 417, 406, 354, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. R/w Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.147 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police, seeks pre-arrest bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner/accused has registered his name with false particulars in the Christian Matrimony and contacted the Defacto Complaint and convinced her for marriage and based on the said promise, had cheated gold jewels and money from the Defacto Complainant. Hence, the complaint.
3. Ms.A.L.Gandhimathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.R.Venkatesan for the petitioner/accused would submit that the petitioner/accused is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner/accused has no personal nexus with the defacto Complainant and both are acquainted through the Petitioner''s online trading business. The defacto Complainant proposed to marry the Petitioner, which had rejected by the Petitioner/accused and on the said refusal, the defacto Complainant developed the grudge and lodged false complaint. Hence, he prays for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/accused.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the matter is under investigation and the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.10215 of 2023 namely the defacto complainant seeks intervene and opposed for grant of pre-arrest bail.
5. The summon substance of the averments of the defacto complainant are as under:
(i) The defacto complainant is a Government Doctor and working in one of the Government Hospital at Chennai and living with her mother and brother.
(ii) She registered for marriage proposal through Christian matrimony.com website in the month of May 2022 and obtained Registration ID No.CHR3139112 and one Dr.Prasanna, aged 47 years, Church of South India, Chennai, Educational qualification MD/MS professionalized Doctor and also registered in Registration ID No.CHR3119859 for seeking bride.
(iii) The said Dr.Prasanna had sent a mail to the petitioner stating that he is interest to marry her, hence she accept his request and thereafter they both are decided to marriage.
(iv) The accused informed the petitioner by stating that his father is not interesting the marriage, hence his uncle namely Surya Prakash (original Name not known) will conduct our marriage, the petitioner trusted/accused words and also meet his uncle Surya Prakash and decided to conduct marriage.
(v) On 05.02.2023, the accused and his uncle Surya Prakash assured that the accused will married the petitioner and thereafter the marriage will be registered before Registrar Office, hence the petitioner believed the words of the said person and she living with accused at 1002, DAYTONA, INCOR PBEL CITY, accused asked the petitioner''s Gold Jewels and money for his business, as request of the accused, the petitioner gave 80 Sovereign Gold Jewels and Rs.16,00,000/- from her savings and also gave Rs.52,00,000/- from availing loan from Bajaj Finance and ICICI Bank totaling Rs.68,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Lakhs only) to the accused and his brother-in-law namely Prem Kumar''s account through online bank Transaction.
(vi) After one month the accused did not register the marriage and he only demanding money from the petitioner and further he assured that the loan EMI will be paid by him on every month, but he did not pay the EMI on every month, hence the petitioner asked him to pay the EMI for the loan amount, at that time he changed his attitude and harassing the petitioner by demanding more money and finally he refused the petitioner and throw out her from the house, due to the atrocity of the accus
The main legal point established is the need for regulations governing online matrimonial websites to prevent fraudulent activities and protect individuals from falling victim to online matrimonial f....
The court has established that pre-arrest bail can be granted if custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary.
The court determined that allegations of rape based on a false promise of marriage do not hold if the victim is married and both parties consented.
The court allows pre-arrest bail based on lack of evidence for custodial necessity, emphasizing conditions for cooperation and non-interference with witnesses.
The judicial system cannot be used to facilitate marriages or be manipulated for personal gain. The truth must prevail through investigation.
In order to establish whether the 'consent' was vitiated by a 'misconception of fact' arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a....
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.