news details |
|
|
| Failed love affair can't be turned into criminal prosecution: Jammu Court | | |
Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 3: In a significant ruling, the Fast Track Court Jammu has observed that a failed romantic relationship cannot, merely because it did not culminate in marriage, be treated as a case of deceitful inducement, while granting bail to a 25-year-old man accused of establishing physical relations on the alleged false promise of marriage and obtaining Rs 12 lakh from a woman government employee.
Presiding Officer Amarjeet Singh Langeh made these observations while allowing the bail application of Saleem Khan, a resident of Manyal village, Thanamandi, district Rajouri, who was arrested in connection with FIR No. 68/2026 registered at Police Station Peer Mitha, Jammu, under Sections 69, 318(4) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to the prosecution, the complainant, a Patwari in the Revenue Department, alleged that the accused developed an intimate relationship with her after promising marriage and subsequently obtained Rs 12 lakh for establishing a business. She alleged that the accused later refused to marry her, declined to return the money and threatened to defame her.
The accused, however, denied the allegations, claiming that the dispute arose out of financial transactions connected with a business partnership. He further contended that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant was considerably older than him.
After examining the case diary and rival submissions, the Court observed that the relationship between the parties had developed over a considerable period since 2023 and that its subsequent breakdown could not automatically establish deceitful inducement.
The Court noted that the complainant was an educated government employee and, according to the investigation, 17 years older than the accused. These circumstances, along with the duration of their relationship, were considered while examining the allegations at the bail stage.
Significantly, the Court observed that the dispute also had a distinct financial dimension, indicating that the controversy had its origins partly in monetary dealings between the parties.
The Court further observed that failure to honour a financial commitment, without dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, does not automatically constitute cheating.
In strong observations, the Court noted that the circumstances suggested that a failed relationship and an unsettled monetary transaction appeared to have been weaponised to invoke criminal law.
Advocate Ajaz Chowdhary appeared for the accused, while Additional Public Prosecutor Ajay Dogra represented the prosecution. Advocate Ashish Kumar appeared on behalf of the complainant and strongly opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation.
The Court, however, held that the circumstances, when considered cumulatively, tilted in favour of granting bail to the accused.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the application and directed the accused to furnish bail and surety bonds of Rs 30,000 each, subject to conditions that he cooperate with the investigation, refrain from intimidating prosecution witnesses and not tamper with evidence.
The Court expressly clarified that its observations were confined to the disposal of the bail application and would have no bearing on the merits of the criminal case during trial. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
