Breach of Promise to Marry is not Cheating without Dishonest Intent at Inception

Source: Orissa High Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra of the Orissa High Court, in L v. State of Orissa (2026), held that a conviction under Section 417 of IPC (Section 318(2) of BNS) for cheating cannot be sustained on a promise of marriage unless the prosecution establishes that the promise was false and dishonestly made at its inception, with no intention on the part of the accused to honour it. 

• The Court set aside the appellant's conviction under Section 417 IPC, holding that the mere subsequent failure to fulfil a promise of marriage does not by itself amount to cheating. 

What was the Background of L v. State of Orissa (2026) Case? 

• The appellant and the prosecutrix were in a relationship, and the appellant allegedly established sexual intercourse with her on the assurance of marriage. 
• When villagers learnt of the relationship, the appellant left the village. Subsequently, the prosecutrix's parents arranged her marriage with another person. 
• On the scheduled date of the marriage, the appellant allegedly contacted the groom's family and disclosed his relationship with the prosecutrix, following which the groom's family called off the wedding. 
• When the prosecutrix asked the appellant to marry her, he refused. An FIR was thereafter registered against him under Section 376 (rape) and Section 417 (cheating) of the IPC. 
• The Trial Court held that the appellant and the prosecutrix were in love and that the prosecutrix had consented to the sexual relationship with knowledge of its consequences; it accordingly acquitted him under Section 376 IPC. However, it convicted him under Section 417 IPC for cheating, on the ground that he had refused to marry her despite having assured her of marriage. 
• The appellant challenged the conviction under Section 417 IPC before the Orissa High Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Ingredients of Cheating Based on a Promise to Marry: The Court held that a mere breach of promise, without proof that the promise was false and dishonestly made at inception, does not by itself constitute cheating. The prosecution must establish that the promise was false at its very inception and that the accused had no intention of honouring it at the time it was made. 
• On Reliance on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019): The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling that consent vitiated by a misconception of fact arising from a promise to marry can be established only where the promise was false, given in bad faith, and made without any intention of being kept at the time it was made. It also noted that such a false promise must have a direct and immediate nexus with the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act. This position was reiterated by the Gauhati High Court in Guluk Kathar v. State of Assam (2025). 
• On the Trial Court's Own Findings: The Court observed that the Trial Court, while acquitting the appellant under Section 376 IPC, had itself found that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and that the prosecution had failed to prove that her consent was induced by the assurance of marriage. It held that this finding was directly relevant to the charge under Section 417 IPC as well. 
• On the Appellant's Conduct: The Court held that there was no convincing evidence that the appellant had made a false promise of marriage with no intention of honouring it at the inception of the relationship. It further noted that the appellant's act of contacting the groom's family was relevant in showing his continuing intention to marry the prosecutrix. 
• On Selective Reliance on Evidence: The Court held that although rape and cheating are offences with distinct ingredients, the same body of evidence could not be selectively relied upon to acquit the accused of rape on the ground that the relationship was consensual, while simultaneously convicting him for cheating merely because the relationship subsequently failed, without independently establishing dishonest intention at inception. 
• Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 417 IPC was set aside. 

What is Cheating under BNS? 

Section 318 BNS (Cheating): 

• Sub-section (1) – Definition: Cheating occurs when a person fraudulently or dishonestly deceives another, inducing them to deliver property, consent to retention of property, or do/omit an act likely to cause harm to body, mind, reputation, or property. Dishonest concealment of facts amounts to deception. 
• Sub-section (2) – General Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both. 
• Sub-section (3) – Breach of Trust: Enhanced punishment where the offender was under a legal duty or contractual obligation to protect the victim's interests — imprisonment up to 5 years, or fine, or both. 
• Sub-section (4) – Property-Related Cheating: Where cheating induces delivery of property, or making/altering/destroying valuable security or documents — imprisonment up to 7 years, and fine. 

IPC–BNS Comparative Table: