Fact of the case
In the matter of Gaurav Bir Basnet @ Gaurav Basnet vs State of West Bengal The victim filed a police report against the defendant under section 417/376 of the IPC after the accused made false promises to get married to her while they were living together. The accused captivated the victim’s heart by portraying himself as a miserable man who has been living apart from his wife on mutual consent and suffering from the anguish of a virtually ruined marriage. The victim was persuaded by the accuser that he would marry her once she filed for divorce. But from January 2015, everything changed drastically. The accused began pressuring the victim to quit her employment. The victim went on to say that she had a sexual relationship with Mr. Basnet, who painted for her an image of a blissful married existence. After returning, Mr. Basnet declared that he had to reconsider because divorce would be detrimental to his daughter, who was his priority, as well as his family’s standing in society.
Argument Advance
According to the appellant, Mr. Basnet did not omit any information regarding his personal life, his broken marriage, or his daughter. After that, the victim decided to move in with the appellant. There is no proof that Mr. Basnet had the mens rea to deceive the victim from the beginning of their relationship, according to the evidence. He was honest in the connection, but later on, when he was thinking about his daughter’s future, he had to reconsider.
According to the defendant submits that She made the choice in reliance on the accused’s assurance that a divorce petition based on mutual consent would be filed. But after 11 months, he broke his word and told the victim that he was unable to end the marriage in the best interests of his daughter, which was disastrous for the victim woman. Thus, the accused person is deceived through his actions. The victim, an unmarried woman, was forced to give in to the accused’s lust and was then sexually abused. The accused man used a fake promise of marriage to seduce the victim woman, and from the beginning, he had terrible plans to avoid being married to her.
Analysis Court Order
The Calcutta High Court Single-judge Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury recently ruled that a man cannot be charged with cheating under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if he promises to marry his live-in partner after getting a divorce from his wife but later fails to do so.
The judge took note of the accuser’s statement upon his return from Bombay that he was unable to file for divorce since doing so would negatively impact his daughter and his family’s reputation. Because the accused’s promise of marriage was conditional on the dissolution of his existing marriage, it cannot be charged under sections 376 and 417 of the IPC. As a result, it can be safely said that the accused’s promise was not a promise simpliciter.