Intent to cheat must exist from the beginning; mere failure to fulfill promises does not constitute criminal deception.

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.1406 of 2022 on the file of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner fell in love with the second respondent. Thereafter, they had physical relationship on 29.12.2021 in a private lodge. Once again on 20.01.2022, the petitioner had physical relationship with the second respondent on compulsion. Thereafter, he neglected the second respondent and refused to speak to her. Further, he also refused to marry her. On a complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in crime No.3 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner never had physical relationship with the second respondent on the pretext of marriage. Even according to the second respondent, both fell in love and they had physical relationship. She was aged about 19 years at the time of the alleged occurrence and it was a consensual relationship. Further, the petitioner never had undertaken to marry the second respondent. Therefore, the offence under Section 417 of IPC is not at all made out against the petitioner. Though the first respondent filed FIR for the offence under Section 4 of Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, while filing final report, the said offence had been deleted by the first respondent. It shows that there was absolutely no threatening at the hands of the petitioner. Even as per her statement, there is no averment to attract the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate(crl.side)

appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner fell in love with the second respondent and on the pretext of marriage, he had physical relationship on 29.12.2021. Thereafter on his compulsion, on 20.01.2022 also, he had physical relationship with the second respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to marry the second respondent and when it was questioned by the second respondent, she was threatened by the petitioner with dire consequences. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this criminal original petition.

5. Though notice was served on the second respondent and a counsel entered appearance earlier, no one appeared before this Court today either by person or through pleader.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused all the materials placed before this Court.

7. According to the second respondent, she and the petitioner fell in love. Thereafter, they had physical relationship on 29.12.2021 in a private lodge. Admittedly, the second respondent was a major at the time of the alleged occurrence. Once again on 20.01.2022, they had stayed in the very same hotel and had physical relationship. Though the second respondent alleged that on compulsion, he had physical relationship with her, there was no complaint on that allegation. Only allegation made against the petitioner is that thereafter the petitioner failed to speak to her and repeatedly neglected her. Though the petitioner and the second respondent fell in love, it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had physical relationship with the second respondent under the pretext of marriage. The second respondent never whispered that the petitioner undertook to marry the second respondent and on the pretext of marriage, he had sexual relationship. Ther