Girl Who Eloped With Paramour Days Before Her Marriage Fixed By Parents Cannot Be Booked For Cheating By Groom: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that if a girl elopes with her paramour before marrying the groom with whom her parents fixed her marriage, she cannot be booked for hearing by the groom and his parents.A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale gave the ruling while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a girl, her parents and brother, all residents of...
The Bombay High Court has held that if a girl elopes with her paramour before marrying the groom with whom her parents fixed her marriage, she cannot be booked for hearing by the groom and his parents.
A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale gave the ruling while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a girl, her parents and brother, all residents of Pune, for allegedly cheating a man's family, with whom the girl's marriage was fixed after her engagement.
"The facts in the present case prima facie do not disclose commission of the cognizable offence of cheating. There is no whiff of any dishonesty or intention to deceive in any of the statements of the witnesses as recorded by the Police," the judges noted.
It is a regrettable case of a hapless young woman who went along with her parents' decision to marry the complainant man but at the last minute developed cold feet to enter a charade of a marriage, the bench opined.
"Her plight in not being brave enough to confide in her parents about her relationship with another man cannot be construed to as cheating as an offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) nor can it foist a prosecution on her. The decision to remain silent can at best be injudicious but not dishonest," the judges held.
To make out an offence under cheating the intention to cheat or deceive should be right there from the beginning, the bench said, adding that in the present case, no such intention to cheat from the beginning could be made out from the complaint.
"Considering the factual matrix, prima facie reading of the FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence of cheating. According to us, perusal of FIR does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence and in particular an offence under Section 420 of the IPC," the judges said, while quashing the FIR.
At best, offences under Sections 417, 418 and 500 of the IPC can be said to have been made out against the Applicants, the bench made clear.
However, the bench noted that these three provisions aren't cognisable offences and thus quashed the FIR.
Background:
According to the prosecution case, the petitioner's family met the complainant and his family through some family friends and 'match-makers' and after visiting each others' residences, they agreed to get their children married to each other. The marriage was fixed for May 1, 2022 after their engagement in March 2022.
Both families got busy making preparations for the marriage. The complainant's family claimed to have purchased jewellery and trousseau for the girl.
However, on April 29, 2022, the petitioner's family visited the house of the complainant and informed his family that their daughter had been missing since April 28, 2022.
They informed the groom's family that they had already lodged a missing complaint with the local police. The groom's family, however, lodged an FIR against the to-be bride's family and the to-be bride herself for cheating the groom. The groom's family highlighted that they incurred over Rs 1.62 lakhs for the preparations of their marriage.
However, the bench held that no case of cheating was made out since there had been no intention to cheat or dishonesty since inception.
Appearance:
Advocates Priya Gajare and Amit Karva appeared for the Applicants.
Additional Public Prosecutor Anand S Shalgaonkar represented the State.
Advocate Dhananjay Bhosale represented the Complainant.
Case Title: ADP vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 48 of 2023)