IMPORTANT POINT
Cheating--Intention--In order to constitute an offence of cheating intention to deceive should be in existence at time when inducement was made--Mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating.

Ranjit Singh, J.:- A young girl, at the thresh hold of her life, left in lurch after marriage by her NRI husband, is at the receiving end at the hands of insensitive police. Police seems to be at it in this case and have recorded offence of cheating against a lady on the asking of her father-in-law. It is difficult to expect sensitive approach from the police. The police perhaps know how to be ruthless.

2. Petitioner No.1, a young girl, who was married with much fanfare by her parents, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and her brother Sandeep Kumar (petitioner No.4), is being made to face criminal charge of cheating under Section 420 IPC. The impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioners by Ravinder Kumar Kohli, father-in- law of petitioner No.1.

3. Petitioner No.1 married Raman Kumar son of respondent No.2 on 22.1.2004 at Hoshiarpur. The petitioners claim to have given sufficient dowry according to their capacity and had performed the marriage at Navjeet Farm, Una Road, Hoshiarpur. Husband of petitioner No.1 was living in Italy at the time of marriage. Petitioner No.1 would obviously expect to join the company of her husband in Italy. Raman Kumar left for Italy just after twenty days of marriage, leaving the young girl at the mercy of his parents. She alleges that the in-laws started taunting her for bringing less dowry and also demanded more dowry. Petitioner No.1 also complains to have been given beating. She ultimately lodged a complaint against her in-laws leading to registration of an FIR No.419 dated 22.10.2005, under Sections 406/498-A IPC.

4. Upon registration of a criminal case, respondent No.2 and other members of his family approached the petitioners for compromise. For all this time, husband of petitioner No.1 did not look back to enquire about his young wife left in the lurch. Petitioner No.1 must have realised that her husband is least concerned about her. Forced by circumstances, the petitioners reached a compromise with respondent No.2. As per the terms, respondent No.2 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10.00 lacs to petitioner No.1 as full and final settlement towards maintenance and permanent alimony. On her part, petitioner No.1 agreed to divorce Raman Kumar on the basis of mutual consent. Sum of Rs.7.00 lacs was paid to petitioner No.1 with an assurance that remaining sum of Rs.3.00 lacs would be paid before the court when Raman Kumar Kohli would return to India to file a divorce petition on the basis of mutual consent. This compromise between the parties appears to have faced rough weather mainly because the husband of petitioner No.1 has not so far returned from Italy to file a divorce petition as agreed.

5. Without making their son to return, respondent No.2 and his family filed a petition for quashing of FIR No.419 dated 22.10.2005 before this court. In response to the notice, petitioner No.1 appeared before this court maintaining that Raman Kohli had agreed to pay sum of Rs.10.00 lacs and that balance amount of Rs.3.00 lacs was still due. Petitioner No.1 further disclosed that Raman Kumar Kohli had not come forward to file a divorce petition on the ground of mutual consent as was agreed to. Respondent No.2 had then got this petition dismissed as withdrawn on 8.3.2007.

6. Having done so, respondent No.2 appears to have found a convenient police to create trouble for the petitioners. He lodged an FIR on 8.8.2007 making allegation of cheating against the petitioners. Ever obliging police (most probably on some consideration) readily agreed to register the case against the petitioners under Section 420/34 IPC. Allegations are that petitioners had entered into a compromise with respondent No.2 but had not given consent to get the FIR quashed before the High Court and so it amounts to cheating. Somebody would have to stretch one’s imagination to find as to how the allegations contained in the FIR would amount to cheating.

7. Petitioners are still sticking to the agreement, but have alleged that the part expected