A mere breach of promise does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intention is established from the outset.

ORDER

The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) has been filed, by the Petitioners/A.1 to A.3, seeking quashment of the Proceedings against them in CC No.18 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with 34 IPC.

2. Heard Sri Venkat Challa, learned counsel for Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State. Despite service of notice, none represented for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for Petitioners would submit that Petitioners were falsely implicated in this case and that the allegations made in the complaint would not attract any offence under Section 420 IPC and they may indicate a breach of promise for which no criminal liability can be fastened against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would submit that Petitioners never demanded any amount nor taken any advance amount for the sake of marriage. Learned counsel would further submit that respondent No.2, if aggrieved, can approach the competent Civil Court for damages and also for recovery of the alleged amount that was given to the Petitioners. Learned counsel would submit that respondent No.2 himself went back on the marriage proposal on his own volition. Learned counsel would further submit that continuing criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. To buttress their contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Raju Krishna Shedbalkar v.The State of Karnataka & Anr, .Criminal Appeal No.577 of 2024 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6137 of 2021. It is a case where the appellant and the informant wanted the marry and the father of the bride had also given Rs.75,000/- towards advance for marriage hall. The marriage never took place as she learnt that the appellant in fact had married someone else. Thereby, a case has been lodged against the individual and his family members for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 417 read with 34 IPC. The bridegroom and his family members approached the High Court seeking quashment of the case against them. The High Court opined that the case against the bridegroom for the offence under Section 417 IPC is made out and the case against the family members was quashed. Aggrieved thereby, the bridegroom preferred the appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein, it was observed that there can be multiple reasons for initiating a marriage proposal and then the proposal not reaching the desired end. It is beneficial to extract paragraphs 5,6,7 and 8 of the Judgment and read thus:

5. Cheating is defined under Section 415 of IPC which reads as follows:-

"415. Cheating.-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property. or intentionally induces the person so deceived 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 or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".

A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the offence of cheating is in two parts. The first is where a person fraudulently or dishonestly deceives another in inducing that person to deliver any property to any person etc. The second part of the offence would be made out if somebody is deceived to do an act which causes damage or harm to that person "in body, mind, or reputation or property is said to have cheated". Time and again, this Court has reiterated that in order to make out an offence under cheating the intention to cheat or deceive should be right from the beginning. By no stretch of imagination, this is even reflected from the complaint made by the informant.

6. In the case of Hrid