Decision To Remain Silent Can At Best Be Injudicious But Not Dishonest: Bombay HC Quashes Cheating Case Against Woman Who Eloped Just Before Arranged Marriage

The four accused— the woman, her mother, father, and brother—sought to have the First Information Report (FIR) against them quashed. They were initially charged under Sections 417 (punishment for cheating), 418 (cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), and 500 (defamation) of the IPC.

A division Bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale said, “It is a regrettable case of a hapless young woman who went along with her parents’ decision to marry Mr. XXX but at the last minute developed cold feet to enter a charade of a marriage. Her plight in not being brave enough to confide in her parents about her relationship with Mr. XXX cannot be construed to as ‘cheating’ as an offence under the IPC nor can it foist a prosecution on her.”

The Court further said, “The decision to remain silent can at best be injudicious but not dishonest. To make out an offence under cheating the intention to cheat or deceive should be right there from the beginning.”

Advocate Priya Gajar appeared for the Applicants and Additional Public Prosecutor Anand S. Shalgaonkar appeared for the Respondents.

The Court noted that for an offense of cheating under Section 420 to be applicable, there must be evidence of an intention to deceive from the outset. In this case, the Court found no such intention present. The decision to not disclose her relationship with her lover to her parents and the groom’s family, although possibly imprudent, did not meet the legal criteria for criminal cheating.

The High Court reviewed the case and found that the allegations did not substantiate a cognizable offense of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC. The Court highlighted that there was no evidence of dishonesty or intent to deceive in the police statements, leading it to dismiss the criminal proceedings under Section 420.

However, the Court noted that the possibility remained for pursuing legal action under Sections 417, 418, and 500 of the IPC. These are non-cognizable offenses, which are considered less serious and require a warrant for arrest.

Cause Title: X & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., [2024:BHC-AS:34439-DB]

Appearance:

Applicants: Advocates Priya Gajar and Amit Karva

Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor Anand S. Shalgaonkar, Advocate Dhananjay K. Bhosale