The Orissa High Court at Cuttack has set aside the conviction of a man under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that a subsequent refusal to marry cannot, by itself, establish the offence of cheating. The Court stressed that the prosecution must show that the promise of marriage was false from the very beginning and was made with a dishonest intention.
Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra delivered the judgment on July 30, 2026, in a criminal appeal arising from a 2009 conviction.
Background of the Case
A man, who had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhawanipatna, under Section 417 IPC and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment. He had, however, been acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC.
According to the prosecution, the woman and the accused were in a relationship while he was staying in her village. She alleged that he developed physical intimacy with her after assuring her that he would marry her.
Later, when her family arranged her marriage with another man, the accused allegedly contacted the prospective bridegroom's family and asked them not to proceed with the marriage, saying that he wanted to marry her. The proposed marriage was cancelled. The woman subsequently asked the accused to marry her, but he declined. A criminal case was then registered against him under Sections 376 and 417 IPC.
The trial court found that the woman was a major at the relevant time and had consented to the relationship. It therefore acquitted the accused of rape but convicted him for cheating on the ground that he had promised marriage and later refused to marry her.
High Court Examines the Promise of Marriage
The High Court focused on whether the prosecution had established the essential ingredients of cheating.
Justice Mishra explained that Section 417 IPC has to be read with Section 415 IPC, which defines cheating. A mere failure to keep a promise is not enough. The prosecution must establish that the promise was false when it was made and that the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intentions from the outset.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, which distinguishes a false promise of marriage from a subsequent breach of promise.
“The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given,” the Court noted while applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court.
Court's Observation
The High Court found no convincing evidence showing that the accused had never intended to marry the woman when he initially made the promise.
On the contrary, the prosecution's own case showed that when her marriage with another man was arranged, the accused contacted the prospective bridegroom's family and expressed his intention to marry her. The High Court said this conduct was relevant while determining whether he had possessed a dishonest intention from the beginning.
The Court further held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the woman's consent was obtained through a misconception of fact known to the accused. The evidence instead indicated a continuing relationship between two people who were in love and had, at one stage, contemplated marriage.
Decision
The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the promise of marriage was false and made in bad faith from the outset.
“The subsequent refusal to marry the prosecutrix, though unfortunate, does not by itself satisfy the ingredients of Section 417 IPC,” the Court held.
Accordingly, Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, acquitted man of the charge under Section 417 IPC, and allowed the criminal appeal.
Case Details
Case Title: L. S. v. State of Orissa
Case Number: CRLA No. 393 of 2009
Judge: Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra
Decision Date: July 30, 2026
