Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court quashed the conviction of Guluk Kathar under Section 417 IPC, emphasizing that mere refusal to marry does not constitute cheating unless the prosecution establishes a misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC. The case originated from a complaint by the victim, who alleged that the accused had promised to marry her, engaged in a long-term relationship, and later refused to fulfill his promise after she had aborted their child. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon, convicted the accused and sentenced him to one year of imprisonment, a decision upheld by the Sessions Judge. However, Justice Arun Dev Choudhury of the High Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had initially intended to deceive the victim.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, Guluk Kathar, through his counsel, contended that the prosecution failed to establish that the victim’s consent to the physical relationship was obtained under a false promise of marriage. It was argued that the relationship lasted over four years, indicating mutual consent rather than deception. The defense emphasized that there was no initial fraudulent intent and that the prosecution did not present any evidence to prove that the promise to marry was made dishonestly. The victim, being an adult, had entered the relationship willingly, and the mere refusal to marry, after years of being together, could not be classified as cheating. On the other hand, the prosecution, assisted by an amicus curiae, argued that the accused had lured the victim into a sexual relationship under a false promise of marriage. It was asserted that the accused convinced the victim to abort their child by assuring marriage and later reneged on his commitment. The prosecution claimed that this amounted to deception, thereby constituting cheating under Section 417 IPC.

Court’s Judgment:

The Court analyzed the circumstances surrounding the relationship and noted that the accused and the victim were in a consensual relationship for an extended period. Justice Choudhury observed that there was no direct evidence suggesting that the victim consented to the relationship solely based on the promise of marriage. The Court highlighted that the victim admitted to a romantic involvement since 2004-05 and that their physical relationship began two years later. By 2007, she became pregnant, and upon the accused’s advice, she underwent an abortion. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had no intention to marry from the outset. Relying on settled legal principles, the Court reiterated that a mere breach of a promise to marry does not constitute an offense under Section 417 IPC unless the prosecution proves that the promise was false from the beginning. As the prosecution failed to satisfy the requirements under Section 90 IPC, the Court concluded that the accused could not be held guilty. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the Sessions Court were set aside, leading to the acquittal of the accused.