Girl eloped with paramour before marriage cannot be booked for cheating: Bombay HC

Last Updated on August 30, 2024 by Shianjany Pradhan

Background

The case’s background involved the girl’s and groom’s families agreeing to the marriage through mutual acquaintances and matchmakers. The wedding was set for May 2022. Both families had made significant preparations for the event, including purchasing jewelry and other wedding-related items.

However, just days before the wedding, the girl’s family informed the groom’s family that their daughter had been missing since April 28, 2022. They also reported her missing to the local police.

In response, the groom’s family lodged an FIR accusing the girl and her family of cheating, citing expenses of over Rs 1.62 lakhs incurred for the wedding preparations.

Issue

The Bombay High Court addressed the issue where the girl, who had an arranged marriage planned by her parents, eloped with her paramour just before the wedding.

Analysis

The court ruled that the girl, her parents, and her brother could not be charged with cheating, effectively quashing an FIR filed against them.

Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale, who presided over the case, concluded that the FIR lacked evidence of a cognizable offense.

In this context, a cognizable offense is one where the police have the authority to arrest without a warrant and start an investigation without the permission of a court.

The court found no indication of deceit or dishonesty from the beginning.

They highlighted that her failure to disclose her relationship to her parents might be considered a lapse in judgment but not a criminal act of dishonesty.

For an offense of cheating under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to be established, there must be evidence of an intention to deceive from the outset.

 In this case, such intention was not evident in the complaint.

The judges noted that the FIR did not reveal a cognizable offense under Section 420 of the IPC, which deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property.

Although the alleged actions could fall under Sections 417, 418, and 500 of the IPC, which address cheating, criminal breach of trust, and defamation, respectively, these are non-cognizable offenses.

Conclusion

The court found no basis for the cheating charges and quashed the FIR, concluding that the complaint did not substantiate a cognizable offense.