Lady judge says there should be evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation
New Delhi, Dec. 23 (Delhi Crown): Mere refusal to marry a woman after indulging into sexual relationship with her would not constitute the offence of “Cheating”, Justice Anuja Prabhudessai of the Bombay High Court has observed, according to law portal “LiveLaw”.
The HC judge said that it won’t constitute the offence of “Cheating” under section 417 IPC “if there is no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation” of promise of marriage for sex.
Hearing a case, Justice Anuja observed that in the instance case the couple had indulged in sexual relations for over three years. The woman’s testimony did not indicate that she was under a misconception of a promise of marriage, nor was there any evidence to show the man didn’t intend to marry her since the very beginning.
“In the absence of evidence to prove that the prosecutrix had consented for physical relationship on a misconception of fact, as stipulated under Section 90 of IPC, the mere refusal to marry would not constitute offence under Section 417 of the IPC,” observed the lady judge.
Later, the court set aside the trial court’s order convicting the man for cheating the girl under section 417 IPC sentencing him to a year in prison along with a fine of Rs. 5000.
A police case in this regard was registered in the year 1996, in which the woman had alleged that the accused had sexual relationship with her with promise of marriage, and subsequently declined to marry her. The man was then booked for rape and cheating/ fraud under Sections 376 & 417 IPC.