Cheated by bf and his family
harathi
(Querist) 19 October 2023
This query is : Resolved
in a relation with a girl for 6/7 years, spend a lot of money and has been promised by the boy that he will marry her, but the boy has been cheating on her, sleeping with another while he still slept with her and used her in the name of love and promised that he married her, the girl has been honest to her all the time, file a case against him? If the girl has proof that he promised to marry her at any cost but has made a fool out of her when he was sleeping with her still made her believe that he will marry her, can the girl file a case against him? that a girl can file a case against a guy who has consensual s*x with her under the false promise of marriage and his parents also know about this and still they said they have caste feeling about her they give importance to caste against the life of girl the girl is SC and the boy is ST after all knowing this their parents got engaged their boy with another girl and cheated on this girl what is the solution to this problem
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 20 October 2023
If the girl feels she has been utilised and now being neglected by the boy especially after the consensual relationship on the promise of marriage, she can give a complaint with local police under section 417 and 420 ipc.
Dr. J C Vashista
(Expert) 21 October 2023
Since the partners understood repurcussions of consensual relationship and either of them breaks the relationship, no case is made out to sue the partner.
P. Venu
(Expert) 30 October 2023
In my understanding, the facts suggests cohabitation with consent, Hence there is no cause of action for a criminal action.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 25 November 2023
If the cohabitation is with the promise of marriage, the charge of "rape" can be filed.
In case even after such cohabitation the marriage is denied due to SC status of the girl then proceedings can be there under Atrocities Act.
P. Venu
(Expert) 25 November 2023
There is an evolving jurisprudence on the issue which could be best understood in the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs The State Of Maharashtra -
"20. Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by accused, or where an accused, on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. Such cases must be treated differently. If the complainant had any mala fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship be- tween the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
21. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the appellant was serving as a Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre and the complainant was working as an Assistant Nurse in the same health centre and that the is a widow. It was alleged by her that the appel- lant informed her that he is a married man and that he has differences with his wife. Admittedly, they belong to different communities. It is also alleged that the accused/appellant needed a month's time to get their marriage registered. The complainant further states that she had fallen in love with the appellant and that she needed a companion as she was a widow. She has specifically stated that "as I was also a widow and I was also in need of a companion, I agreed to his proposal and since then we were having love affair and accordingly we started residing together. We used to reside sometimes at my home whereas some time at his home." Thus, they were living together, sometimes at her house and sometimes at the residence of the appellant. They were in a relationship with each other for quite some time and enjoyed each other's company. It is also clear that they had been living as such for quite some time together. When she came to know that the appellant had married some other woman, she lodged the complaint. It is not her case that the complainant has forcibly raped her. She had taken a conscious decision after active application of mind to the things that had happened. It is not a case of a passive submission in the face of any psychological pressure exerted and there was a tacit consent and the tacit consent given by her was not the result of a misconception created in her mind. We are of the view that, even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not make out a case against the appellant. We are also of the view that since complainant has failed to prima facie show the commission of rape, the complaint registered under Section 376(2)(b) cannot be sustained."
It is also well settled that SC/ST Act not attracted when offence not done with intention that victim belongs to a particular caste. Law does not encourage weaponizing the legal provisions with oblique motives.
