'Abuse Of Process' : Supreme Court Quashes 'Cheating' Case Filed Against Parents Of Man For Breaking Marriage Promise

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a cheating case (Section 415 IPC) against the parents for facilitating the marriage of their son to another woman instead of the complainant.

Given the complainant's maturity and background, including her 29 years of age, post-graduate degree, and professional experience, the Court found it difficult to believe the parents' conduct easily influenced her.

The Court observed the the trial against the parents would be an "abuse of the process of law" and should be nipped in the bud.

The Court also disapproved of the High Court's observation against the appellants' son, which suggested that quashing the case against his parents would enable him to exploit women of marriageable age in a similar manner. Emphasizing judicial fairness, the Court reiterated that no adverse remarks should be made against a third party who was neither present in the proceedings nor allowed to be heard before the impugned judgment was passed.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and KV Viswanathan was hearing an appeal challenging the Madras High Court's decision refusing to quash cheating case against the appellants. The complainant had accused them of breaking their promise to have their son marry her, and filed a criminal case against the son and the parents, alleging cheating under Sections 417 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The High Court refused to quash the case noting that “If this Petition is allowed, the Petitioners' son will spoil women of marriageable age in the same manner…”.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Parents approached the Supreme Court.

The Appellants argued before the Supreme Court that the complaint lacked any allegation of instigation or misrepresentation by them regarding the marriage promise, the basis for the complainant's relationship with their son. They further argued there was no allegation they forced their son's other marriage or knew of his relationship with the complainant.

The Respondent argued the parents' role was crucial, as their apparent acceptance of the relationship influenced the complainant. She was then abandoned when their son married another woman.

Upon hearing the parties, the Court observed that the complaint did not disclose any act or conduct by the Appellants that could be considered illegal or criminal. No ingredients of any offense under the IPC, specifically Section 415, were made out against them. The Court noted that the allegations in the complaint were mostly against the son. The Court further concluded that the parents were not aware of what was happening between their son and the complainant.

The Court extracted Section 415, which defines cheating. It emphasized the need for deception, fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and intent to cause harm, however, no ingredient was established in the complaint.

“we do not find that there is any act or conduct on the part of the appellants which can be termed to be illegal per se, much less criminal in nature. No ingredients of any offence under the IPC appear to be forthcoming. As such, we are unable to hold that any offence under the ambit of Section 415 of the IPC is made out against the instant appellants.”, the court observed.

Moreover, citing Anu Kumar v State (UT Administration), the Court directed deletion of the adverse remarks recorded against the Appellant's son noting that the High Court erred in passing such remarks against their son who was neither a party to the proceedings before the High Court, not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing to present its case.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Case Title: MARIPPAN & ANR. VS. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 177

Click here to read/download the order

Appearances:

For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Avinash Wadhwani, Adv. Mr. G. Balaji, AoR Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AoR Mr. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Ms. Arjoo Rawat, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. A. Renganath, Adv. Mr. R. Ayyam Perumal, AoR