Path: Home » Uncategorised » MP High Court: One Year is Enough for a Woman to Distinguish Between ‘Breach of Promise’ and ‘False Promise of Marriage’

MP High Court: One Year is Enough for a Woman to Distinguish Between ‘Breach of Promise’ and ‘False Promise of Marriage’

In a recent ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that more than one year is sufficient for a reasonable woman to understand the difference between a “mere breach of promise” and a “false promise to marry.” The court made this observation while quashing an FIR filed against a man under Sections 376(2)(N), 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case involved a relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, which lasted from 2020 to 2021. The prosecutrix alleged that during this period, the petitioner avoided discussions about marriage despite being in a relationship with her. She claimed that on July 10, 2021, the petitioner assaulted her in his car after ignoring her requests to solemnize their marriage.

The petitioner, on the other hand, argued that the FIR was lodged with bad intentions to gain undue advantage. He emphasized that the prosecutrix, a mature woman with three children, had willingly entered into the relationship, and her consent was not obtained through misrepresentation. The prosecutrix countered by claiming that her consent was based on the petitioner’s promise to marry her, making it a case of false promise.

The High Court, relying on various Supreme Court judgments, highlighted the important distinction between a mere breach of promise and a false promise of marriage. The court explained that only a false promise to marry, made with the intention to deceive, invalidates a woman’s consent. A simple breach of promise, without deceptive intent, cannot be considered a false promise.

The court found that the case at hand was one of breach of promise, as the prosecutrix continued her relationship with the petitioner despite his reluctance to marry. Therefore, it was not a case of false promise. The court quashed the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings, stating that prosecuting the petitioner under these charges would amount to “nothing but an abuse of the process of law.”

The court’s decision serves as a reminder of the legal distinction between a breach of promise and a false promise made to deceive, protecting individuals from wrongful prosecution in such cases.

Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *