Breach of Promise to Marry Is Not Cheating or Rape Without Dishonest Intention at Inception: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed the settled legal position that a breach of a promise to marry—however morally questionable—does not, by itself, constitute an offence of cheating or sexual assault in the criminal sense unless it is clearly established that the promise was false from the very inception and made with a dishonest intention to deceive.
Allowing petitions seeking quashing of an FIR and criminal proceedings, the Single Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that criminal law cannot be invoked merely because a consensual relationship did not culminate in marriage. The Court observed that Section 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code) cannot be attracted in the absence of material showing deception at the inception of the relationship.
The Court was examining allegations that the accused had promised to marry the complainant and, on that assurance, entered into a physical relationship, but later withdrew from the promise and sought to marry another person. The complainant alleged that this conduct amounted to cheating and sexual offences committed on the pretext of marriage.
The accused, however, contended that the relationship was consensual, that there was no false promise at the inception, and that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It was further pointed out that the complainant had a complex marital history, which was relevant in assessing the nature of the allegations.
The High Court examined whether the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted at face value, disclosed the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. Relying on consistent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court reiterated the distinction between consensual intimacy and offences premised on a “misconception of fact” arising from a false promise of marriage. It emphasised that for criminal liability to arise, it must be shown that the promise was made in bad faith, without any intention of being honoured, and that such promise had a direct nexus with the complainant’s decision to consent.
On the facts of the case, the Court found that the material on record did not prima facie disclose any dishonest intention or knowledge at the inception of the relationship. The physical relationship, as alleged, appeared to be consensual, and the failure of the relationship to culminate in marriage could not, by itself, attract criminal culpability under sexual-offence provisions or cheating laws.
Addressing the allegation of cheating, the Court underscored the “settled proposition” that a breach of a promise to marry, irrespective of its moral dimensions, is not per se cheating unless dishonest intention at inception is clearly established. The Court noted that such foundational intent was “conspicuously absent” from the case record.
Reiterating the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court held that criminal proceedings may be quashed at the threshold where the allegations, even if taken at their highest, do not disclose the commission of any offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, holding that the invocation of criminal law in the present case was legally unsustainable and unjustified, the Karnataka High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the FIR and all criminal proceedings arising therefrom.