MP High Court: One Year is Enough to Understand False Promise vs Breach of Promise

MP High Court: One Year is Enough to Understand False Promise vs Breach of Promise

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed an FIR against a man accused of sexual assault and criminal intimidation. The court observed that more than one year is enough time for a reasonable woman to distinguish between a false promise to marry and a mere breach of promise.

Case Background

The complainant (prosecutrix) and the petitioner (accused) were in a relationship from 2020 to 2021. She claimed that they stayed together on multiple occasions in Seondha and that the petitioner would avoid discussions about marriage. On July 10, 2021, she alleged that he assaulted her in a car.

The accused argued that the complaint was filed with malicious intent to take advantage of him. He also stated that the woman was mature, had three children, and had consented to the relationship knowingly. The prosecutrix, however, insisted that her consent was obtained under false pretenses, as she believed the petitioner’s promise of marriage.

Court’s Observations and Verdict

The court relied on past Supreme Court judgments to clarify the difference between a false promise to marry and a breach of promise:

“Only a false promise made with the intention to deceive a woman would invalidate consent obtained under misconception of fact. However, a mere breach of promise is not the same as a false promise.”

Since the prosecutrix continued the relationship despite the petitioner avoiding marriage discussions, the court concluded that it was a case of breach of promise rather than fraudulent misrepresentation.

FIR Quashed as Abuse of Legal Process

The court ruled that prosecuting the petitioner in this case would amount to an abuse of the legal process. As a result, it quashed the FIR and all related criminal proceedings.

Key Takeaways

• The court highlighted the difference between false promises and broken commitments in relationships.
• A false promise is made with an intent to deceive, whereas a breach of promise may happen without fraudulent intent.
• The ruling reinforces the principle that not every failed promise of marriage constitutes a criminal offense.

This decision provides clarity on legal interpretations of consent in relationships and the misuse of legal provisions in personal disputes.

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==