Hyderabad: Holding that a mere breach of a promise to marry does not amount to a criminal offence unless there is clear dishonest intent from the very beginning, Telangana high court has quashed criminal proceedings in a cheating case arising out of a failed five-year relationship. Justice N Tukaramji passed the order while allowing a petition filed by a 28-year-old fisherman from Peddapalli district, who had approached the court seeking to quash proceedings pending before the principal judicial first class magistrate, Godavarikhani. According to the complaint filed in 2022, the woman alleged that the petitioner entered into a relationship with her in 2018 on the promise of marriage, but later refused to fulfil that promise. She accused him of cheating, claiming that the relationship was built on false assurances.No fraudulent intentAppearing for the petitioner, counsel J Naresh Kumar argued that the allegations did not constitute cheating as there was no material to show fraudulent intent at the inception of the relationship. It was further contended that there was no element of inducement or delivery of property, which are essential ingredients of the offence, and that the case stemmed from a consensual relationship that eventually failed. The state, however, opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioner’s conduct had caused harm to the complainant and that the issue of intent should be examined during trial. After considering the submissions, the judge relied on precedents laid down by the Supreme Court, which clarify that criminal liability for cheating arises only when a promise is made in bad faith from the outset. A subsequent failure to honour a promise, the judge noted, does not attract criminal charges. Referring to the principles laid down in the Bhajan Lal case, the court held that the allegations did not disclose a cognisable offence and appeared to fall within categories warranting judicial intervention. Observing that the relationship between the parties was consensual and long-standing, the court concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process. It accordingly allowed the petition and quashed all proceedings against the petitioner. Judge relied on precedents laid down by the SC, which clarify that criminal liability for cheating arises only when a promise is made in bad faith from the outset
