The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the FIR lodged against a man by a married woman, complaining that she was cheated by the man as he failed to keep his promise of marriage to her.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while dealing with a case where the petitioner was charged under Sections 498A, 504, 507 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant – woman claimed that she is married and has a daughter but her ‘husband’ abandoned them. She claims to have met the petitioner at work and it was alleged that the petitioner assured that he would marry her.

She said she was lured into a relationship by the petitioner on the assurance of marriage and since he did not keep up his promise, she registered a complaint.

Whereas, the petitioner argued that he did help the complainant when she was in need but he never assured her that he would marry her, as the complainant was already married and even had a child. Moreover, it was argued that unless she would come out of her marriage and get a divorce, even the allegation that the petitioner had promised to marry her cannot be sustained.

On going through the records the bench noted that the petitioner was in Malaysia and used to send money to the complainant for the purpose of living. But later, he stopped responding to her calls and that’s when the woman filed the complaint.

“Cheating is alleged on the ground that the petitioner has breached the promise of marriage. The complainant admits that she is already married and has a child from the wedlock. If she is already married, there can be no question of cheating on the breach of the promise of marriage. Therefore, the said offence also cannot be laid against the petitioner.”

The Court said no document was produced to demonstrate that the petitioner at any time was the complainant’s husband. “The offence alleged is one punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. There is not even a document to demonstrate that the petitioner and the 1st respondent are married. It is in fact admitted by the complainant that she is already married, and has a child born from the said wedlock.”

Court said if complainant is already married, it is not understandable as to how the petitioner can be claimed to be her husband.

“The objections of the complainant does not narrate that she has secured a decree of divorce from the earlier husband. When the said marriage is still subsisting, it can hardly be said that the petitioner is her husband and the complainant and her daughter need to be maintained.”

“Merely because the petitioner has sent some money some time for the need of the complainant, it cannot be said that the petitioner has to maintain them without a legal bond between the complainant and the petitioner,” the court added.

Case No: Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.544 OF 2021