Delhi court orders FIR against woman for making man pay lakhs on gifts, foreign trips on promise of marriage

NEW DELHI: No doubt a person can change their mind after agreeing to marry, but when a promise of marriage is made with the sole intention of deceit, it is cheating. A Delhi court has made the observation while ordering FIR against a woman and her parents for allegedly inducing a man to transfer his businesses in the woman’s name and spend lakhs on shopping.
Though the police contended that the man had spent huge sums of money on the woman willingly, the court said the allegations could not be brushed aside. "It is prima facie apparent that the accused woman had obtained expensive articles, business/property/money from the complainant on the promise of marriage and continued to retain them without fulfilling the promise," metropolitan magistrate Aakash Sharma pointed out.
In its view, the bills and invoices of the various gifts put on record by the man required investigation of the police.
The complainant claimed to be the owner of various businesses, of which some are abroad. He met the woman in October, 2019 and later went on international tours with her. The woman, he alleged, insisted on the ownership of his businesses being transferred in her name.
According to his claims, various gifts and articles of luxury brands amounting to lakhs were given to the woman. He also alleged that the woman's parents raised monetary demands if he wished to marry her. The man reportedly transferred Rs 14 lakh between February and April, 2020 to the woman and her parents.
The police's action taken report submitted in court revealed that the couple had got engaged in Turkey and the man had extravagantly spent on shopping and gifts. The woman subsequently stopped responding to the man's calls and blocked him.
The report argued that the woman had filed a complaint with police against the man for uploading engagement pictures on social media and the man's present application was a counter to the woman's complaint. It also pointed out that the woman spent the money with the permission of the man and, therefore, no cognisable offence was made out.
The man's counsel contended that his client was a 40-year-old man and "not a fool". He argued that it was only after the promise of marriage that his client yielded to the woman's several demands. The woman retaining all the properties, money, gifts and other items had shown offences of “criminal breach of trust, cheating, criminal intimidation, criminal conspiracy,” etc., on her part.
The court found "enough material" to prima facie show cognisable offences. "It is directed that the police register an FIR pertaining to the allegations of the complainant and investigates the case fairly and impartially while invoking the relevant provisions of law," the court stated.