Mumbai, Dec 21: If someone refuses to marry after having a physical relationship for a long time, then it cannot be considered as cheating. The Bombay High Court, has made this observation while reversing the decision of the lower court and convict a youth. The Court said:
There is no evidence on record to indicate that since the inception accused did not intend to marry her. In the absence of evidence to prove that the plentiff 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.
On the complaint of girlfriend Kashinath Gharat, a resident of Palghar, the police had registered a case of rape and cheating under sections 376 and 417. Girlfriend had alleged that Kashinath made physical relation with her by promising marriage and then reneged on the promise. In this case, on February 19, 1999, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Kashinath of the rape charge, but convicted of cheating.
The court had sentenced Kashinath to one year’s rigorous imprisonment for having a relationship on the promise of marriage for three years and then reneging on it. Gharat challenged this order in the Bombay High Court, where a single bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudesai also acquitted him of the fraud charge.
Justice Prabhudesai said that the facts show the woman and the accused were in affair for three years. But she could not prove that she was kept under any kind of deception. During the hearing of the case, the High Court also referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in such cases.
On the complaint of girlfriend Kashinath Gharat, a resident of Palghar, the police had registered a case of rape and cheating under sections 376 and 417.
Girlfriend had alleged that Kashinath made physical relation with her by promising marriage and then reneged on the promise. In this case, on February 19, 1999, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Kashinath of the rape charge, but convicted of cheating.
The court had sentenced Kashinath to one year’s rigorous imprisonment for having a relationship on the promise of marriage for three years and then reneging on it.
Gharat challenged this order in the Bombay High Court, where a single bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudesai also acquitted him of the fraud charge.
Justice Prabhudesai said that the facts show that there was a physical relationship between the woman and the accused for three years and both had an affair.
The court said that the statement of the woman does not prove that she was kept under any kind of deception.
The court said that it should be proved that false facts were placed before the woman while promising her marriage and later those things were proved to be wrong.
