Broken Promises of Marriage Cannot Be Prosecuted as Cheating Without Proof of Dishonest Inducement: Calcutta High Court — Conviction Under Section 420 IPC Set Aside

“Mere Allegation of Taking Money Does Not Constitute Cheating — Criminal Law Cannot Be Weaponized for Failed Relationships,”  In a significant judgment Calcutta High Court emphatically ruled that a mere allegation of taking money under a broken promise of marriage does not attract the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Setting aside the conviction of Adhishekhar Biswas, the Court held, “To constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, there must be dishonest inducement resulting in delivery of property. Mere broken promises or failed relationships cannot be prosecuted under criminal law unless it is coupled with clear fraudulent intent at inception.”

Justice Prasenjit Biswas, delivering a scathing critique of the trial court’s approach, observed that, “The prosecution has completely failed to establish the most fundamental requirement of Section 420 — that there was deception leading to delivery of property. No document, no corroborative evidence, and no reliable testimony support this allegation except the bare statement of the complainant.”

The genesis of the case stemmed from a complaint filed by the victim who alleged that the accused, Adhishekhar Biswas, lured her into a relationship under the false promise of marriage, engaged in sexual relations, and borrowed money from her and her family, only to later refuse marriage. Shockingly, the prosecution’s case neither produced a single document reflecting any financial transaction nor brought forth any independent witness to corroborate the claim of monetary dealings. The landlord who had housed the complainant and the accused turned hostile, and other witnesses offered no support to the claim that the accused had taken any money fraudulently.

The Court took strong exception to the mechanical manner in which the trial court applied Section 420 IPC. Justice Biswas remarked, “A broken promise of marriage, howsoever unfortunate or morally condemnable, cannot be stretched into an offence of cheating under criminal law unless it is demonstrated that from the very inception, there was fraudulent intent. The essential ingredients of cheating — deceit, dishonest inducement, and resulting wrongful loss — are conspicuously absent in this case.”

Referring to the recent authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Mariam Fasihuddin v. State by Adugodi Police Station, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 53, the High Court reiterated the principle that, “For Section 420 IPC to apply, there must not only be an act of deception but also dishonest inducement leading to the parting with property. Without this twin requirement, the conviction cannot be sustained in law.”

The Court further observed, “What emerges from the records is a relationship dispute that soured over time. Criminal law cannot be weaponized to settle scores over personal grievances. If every broken promise in intimate relationships were prosecuted under Section 420 IPC, the line between criminal law and personal morality would be obliterated.”

Justice Biswas went on to underline that the complainant herself admitted that the accused had married her, and they had cohabited together in a rented house. The Court noted, “Such an admission destroys the prosecution’s case that the accused had any fraudulent intention from the inception.”

Dealing with the manner in which the investigation was conducted, the Court did not mince words. “Neither the Investigating Officer seized any document nor was any material produced in court that could demonstrate that any money ever changed hands, let alone as a result of dishonest inducement,” the Court remarked. It added that the allegations remained nothing more than bald assertions, unsupported by evidence.

Setting aside the conviction, the Court declared, “The judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court is legally unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. He shall be discharged from his bail bonds and set at liberty if not required in any other case.”

The judgment ends with the clear pronouncement that, “Criminal jurisprudence cannot permit a scenario where a personal betrayal is converted into a criminal offence without satisfying the rigorous requirements of the penal law.”

This judgment is a reiteration of the growing judicial consensus that the criminal justice system cannot be invoked to address relationship failures or breach of personal commitments unless accompanied by incontrovertible proof of dishonest inducement leading to wrongful financial loss. The line between civil wrongs, moral obligations, and criminal conduct must remain carefully guarded.

D.D. 16th June 2025.