In a recent order, the Supreme Court of India provided clarity on the application of Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), asserting that the initiation of a marriage proposal, even if it does not culminate in the desired outcome, does not necessarily constitute an offence of cheating. The case in question involved an appeal filed by Raju Krishna Shedbalkar against the Karnataka High Court's decision to proceed with charges under Section 417.

The bench, composed of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale, overturned the High Court's order and allowed Shedbalkar's appeal. The key contention was that the prosecution lacked reliable and trustworthy evidence to establish the essential elements of cheating under Section 417.

The court emphasized that while initiating a marriage proposal might involve various reasons, proving an offence of cheating requires clear evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intent right from the beginning. In the absence of such evidence, the court held that no offence under Section 417 of the IPC could be established.

The background of the case involved a woman, described as an M Tech graduate and lecturer, who filed a First Information Report (FIR) against six individuals, including Shedbalkar. The FIR alleged that the appellant and the woman's family were in talks regarding a potential marriage, with an advance payment made for a marriage hall. 

However, the marriage did not materialize, and the woman later discovered through a newspaper report that Shedbalkar had married someone else.

The Karnataka High Court had upheld the proceedings under Section 417, reasoning that the appellant had induced the woman's father to book a marriage hall. However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning to be "patently incorrect."

The court highlighted the dual elements of cheating under Section 417. Firstly, there must be fraudulent or dishonest deception leading someone to deliver property, and secondly, the deceived person should suffer harm or damage. The court stressed that the intention to cheat or deceive must be present from the outset, as reiterated in previous judgments.

In this case, the court found that the informant's complaint did not reflect an intention to cheat from the beginning. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings under Section 417 against Shedbalkar, underscoring the importance of establishing clear intent in cases of cheating.

Case: RAJU KRISHNA SHEDBALKAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR,

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.577 OF 2024 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 6137 OF 2021).

Click to read/download order.