In Kashinath Narayan Gharat vs State of Maharastra, the Bombay high court held that if there is no evidence to prove that there is the misrepresentation of promise to marriage for sex then if a person refuses to marriage after making sexual relation there is no offence of cheating under section 417 of Indian Penal Code.

Justice Anuja Prabhudessai while hearing the case observed that the couple was in a relationship for over three years. They were involved in a sexual relationship without any force or misconception of marriage. There is no evidence to show that there is any kind of promise from the beginning of relation to marry.

The court held that the decision of the trial court of convicting the accused under the offence of cheating is not correct and liable to be set aside.

In 1998 the woman filed an FIR against the accused. She reported that he had sexual relationship with her after the promise of marriage and after being in relationship for three years he refused to marry her. The FIR was filed under sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal code.

The trial court acquitted the accused in offence of rape i.e., under 376 of IPC but convicted under offence of cheating (under section 417 of Indian Penal Code).

For deciding this case the court relied on MAHESHWAR TIGGA VS STATE OF JHARKHAND, 2020 in this case the apex court held that there is no consent under the misconception of fact in the eye of law. But it’s necessary that misconception of fact have proximity with the offence.

In the present case, the court held that there is no evidence on record to prove that the marriage is given by the accused of having sex. Thus the order given by the trial court is not correct and hence liable to be set aside.