Ravinder Singh v State of Punjab: when is it cheating?

By Advocate Panchanand Shaw, Bar Council of West Bengal · Published 4 Nov 2026 · Online fraud

A broken promise of marriage is not cheating unless the accused never intended to keep it. In Ravinder Singh v State of Punjab (2022) the Supreme Court held that the dishonest intention must exist from the outset, and that this intention, proved from the chat and payment record, is what decides an online matrimonial fraud case.

The Supreme Court in Ravinder Singh v State of Punjab (2022) answered a question that decides most matrimonial and romance fraud cases in India: when does a broken promise of marriage become the offence of cheating? The court held that a breach of promise is not cheating by itself. Cheating requires the accused to have had a dishonest or fraudulent intention at the very moment the promise was made. If he genuinely intended to marry and later changed his mind, no offence is made out; if he never intended to marry and used the promise to extract money or sexual relations, the offence is complete.

That rule matters far more online than it did in the courtroom that decided it. Today a large share of matrimonial fraud runs through apps and messaging platforms, and the entire case often turns on whether the chat record proves an intention that existed from the start. This article explains the rule, the sections that now apply, and how to build or defend a case of online matrimonial fraud.

What the appeal was about

The appeal reached a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court from a criminal case in which a complainant alleged that a promise of marriage had induced her to consent, and that the promise was never genuinely meant to be kept. The dispute therefore raised two linked questions. The first was whether the man's conduct amounted to cheating. The second was whether the consent given on the strength of that promise had been vitiated, so that the sexual act itself became an offence.

Both questions, the court said, turn on the same fact: intention when the promise was made. That focus is what makes the judgment useful well beyond the matrimonial context. It supplies the template a court applies whenever someone says "I was told something false and I acted on it", which is the story at the heart of romance scams, investment frauds and the digital arrest scams now filling police stations across West Bengal.

The rule the court laid down

The essential ingredient of cheating is a dishonest inducement. The court reaffirmed the settled position that a mere breach of a promise to marry, however shameful, is not cheating unless the complainant proves that the accused had a fraudulent intention when the promise was made. The test is not what happened later; it is what the accused intended at the beginning. Two situations look identical to a jilted complainant, yet only one is a crime.

The judgment went further and addressed the connected question of consent. Where sexual relations take place on a false promise of marriage, the consent is vitiated — and the act can amount to an offence — only if the accused's promise was fraudulent from the outset. A promise that was honestly made and later broken does not, on that reasoning, vitiate consent. The court stressed that this conclusion depends on the facts of each case and on what the evidence shows about intention at the inception.

Intention at inception: how a court actually tests it

The court asks what the accused intended when the promise was made, not when it was broken.
It looks for conduct before the promise — was there a parallel engagement, a hidden marriage, a pattern of identical promises to several people?
It asks whether the accused induced something of value: money, sexual relations, or a decision the complainant would not otherwise have taken.
It weighs the accused's conduct after the promise — silence, evasion and refusal to meet are treated as evidence of intention, though never conclusive on their own.
It asks whether the promise was capable of being kept at all, or was made by someone who was never in a position to marry.
It separates a broken heart from a broken promise to pay money; the second is the clearer offence.

What happened	Cheating?	Why
Genuine engagement, later called off	No	The intention at inception was honest; the dispute is civil
Promise made, money taken, accused disappears	Yes, ordinarily	The dishonest intention is inferable from the inducement of money
Accused was already married and concealed it	Yes, ordinarily	Concealment from the start points to a fraudulent intention
Identical promises to several complainants	Yes, ordinarily	A repeated pattern negates an honest intention
Promise honestly made, later broken	No	A change of mind is not a dishonest inducement at inception

Where online matrimonial fraud fits

An online matrimonial or romance fraud usually carries two distinct wrongs. The first is the deception about identity and intention — the profile, the photographs, the invented story that induces the victim to send money. The second is the money itself, which moves through UPI, bank transfers or gift cards and is often layered through mule accounts. The first wrong is proved by the chat record; the second is proved by the banking trail. Ravinder Singh tells you which of those facts will actually decide the criminal case: the intention, not the disappointment.

This is why the scripted romance scam is easier to prosecute than the genuine broken engagement. A fraudster who never intended to meet, who asked for money from the first week, and who used the same lines on several victims leaves a chat record from which a court can infer dishonest intention from the outset. A complainant whose engagement simply ended, with no money or false identity involved, will find the criminal remedy closed and the civil courts open.

The two wrongs are also proved differently, and a case that mixes them up tends to fail. The deception is proved by the messages and by the accused's own history — the profile photographs traced to another person, the phone number used across many complaints. The money is proved by bank statements, UPI reference numbers and the account into which the funds were layered. A charge sheet that speaks only of betrayal, without the certified electronic record and the transaction trail, is easy to attack.

The provisions that apply today

For conduct before 1 July 2024, cheating is punishable under section 420 and defined in section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, read with section 90 for the vitiating of consent. For conduct on or after that date, the corresponding provisions are section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which defines cheating and, in sub-section (4), punishes cheating with dishonest inducement of the delivery of property. Where the deception is carried out using a computer resource, section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 — cheating by personation by using a computer resource — is also attracted, and it carries its own punishment.

On procedure, a complaint that discloses a cognizable offence is registered as an FIR under section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the magistrate's powers of direction available where the police decline to register. An officer who refuses to record a matrimonial fraud complaint on the ground that it is "a family matter" is refusing something the law does not permit, and a written application to the Superintendent of Police or the magistrate is the standard remedy.

Proving intention from the chat record

The intention that Ravinder Singh requires almost never comes from a confession. It comes from messages, call recordings, payment requests and the accused's own profile history. That means the evidence rule on electronic records matters as much here as it does in any cyber crime case. WhatsApp chats, emails and payment screenshots are electronic records, and a court will ordinarily want them proved properly — including, in many cases, a certificate under section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, from the person in charge of the device or record. Preserve the phone, keep the account active, and do not delete the thread.

Reporting the money and the RBI timeline

The money trail deserves as much care as the chat record. A victim should file a written complaint with the bank or payment app, report the transaction through the national cyber crime helpline on 1930 or the cybercrime.gov.in portal, and preserve every UPI or NEFT reference number. Under the Reserve Bank of India's directions on unauthorised electronic transactions, the customer is expected to report without delay, and the extent of the customer's liability depends on how quickly the bank was put on notice. A victim who waits weeks or months before reporting weakens both the police case and any claim against the bank, so the reporting timeline should be treated as the first priority, not the last.

What an accused person can argue

The same rule protects an accused who was honest at the start. If the relationship was genuine, the promise real, and the break-up ordinary, the defence is that no dishonest intention existed when the promise was made, and the burden of proving that intention rests on the prosecution, not on the accused. A charge that simply recites a broken engagement, without evidence of an intention to deceive, does not disclose the offence.

Where the messages have been read selectively, the defence can place the full thread before the court and show a consistent, honest intent right up to the point the relationship ended. A court is entitled to look at the whole conversation, the timing of the payments, and the reason the couple separated, rather than at a few lines chosen by the complainant. For an accused person, the practical task is to preserve the device and produce the complete record, not to argue from memory.

Mistakes that damage an online matrimonial fraud case

Deleting the chat or the profile after the breakup, which destroys the only proof of intention at inception.
Framing the complaint as merely emotional, without the money trail or the false identity, so that it reads like a family dispute rather than an offence.
Sending further money in the hope of a settlement or a "release fee", which the fraudster will use to ask for more.
Waiting months before reporting to the bank, undermining any claim under the RBI directions.

Where the person induced you to part with money through a false identity or a false promise, the priority is to lock the evidence down and to act quickly. A complaint that explains the intention from the outset, links the inducement to the payments, and annexes the certified electronic record is far more likely to be registered and pursued than a general narration of betrayal. Our explainer on the electronic evidence standard sits alongside our cyber crime blog, and the practical filing page is at cyber crime lawyer in Kolkata.

When to involve a lawyer

If your complaint was dismissed as a "relationship matter", if you have been accused of cheating on a promise you honestly meant, or if a charge has been framed against you on messages taken out of context, the Ravinder Singh rule cuts both ways and needs to be argued precisely. Counsel can help you classify the facts correctly, draft a complaint that discloses the offence, or resist one that does not. To discuss the merits of your matter, reach the chambers through the contact page or the criminal defence section of this site.

Need help with a cyber crime matter?

Tell me what happened and I will tell you what to file, where, and by when. First conversation is free.

Call +91-9007000603 WhatsApp

Frequently asked questions

What did Ravinder Singh v State of Punjab decide?

The Supreme Court held that a mere breach of a promise to marry is not the offence of cheating. Cheating requires proof that the accused had a dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the promise was made. If the intention was honest then and changed later, no offence is made out, and the dispute belongs in the civil courts.

When does a false promise of marriage amount to cheating?

It amounts to cheating when the accused never intended to marry from the beginning and used the promise to induce the complainant to part with money or take a decision they would not otherwise have taken. The dishonest intention at inception is the essential ingredient. A promise honestly made and later broken does not satisfy that test.

Which sections apply to online matrimonial fraud?

For conduct before 1 July 2024, sections 415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, with section 90 on consent. For conduct after that date, section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Where a computer resource is used to deceive, section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 also applies.

Can asking for money make a broken promise a crime?

Yes, often it can. Where the accused obtained money through a false promise or a false identity and then disappeared, courts ordinarily infer dishonest intention from the inducement itself. The money request and the transfer trail become the strongest evidence of intention. A complaint that links the promise to the payment is far stronger than one about hurt feelings.

How do I prove dishonest intention at the start?

Mostly from the electronic record: messages, voice notes, payment requests and the accused's profile history. Proof that the accused made identical promises to others, concealed an existing marriage, or was never in a position to marry supports the inference. Preserve the device and the chats, and obtain a certificate under section 63(4) of the BSA where a copy is relied on.

Is the criminal remedy available if no money changed hands?

Rarely, and only if the deception itself is criminal. Where the only wrong is a broken engagement with no money, no false identity and no other inducement, a court is unlikely to find cheating, and the dispute is civil. The offence requires a fraudulent inducement of some value, so a pure disappointment is not enough.

What should I do first if I am a victim of matrimonial fraud?

Preserve the evidence before you act: keep the phone, do not delete the chat, screenshot the profile, and record the payment references. Report the money transfer to your bank or payment app without delay, and file a complaint on the 1930 helpline or at cybercrime.gov.in. Delay in reporting weakens any claim under the RBI directions on unauthorised transactions.

Does this case apply to romance scams as well?

Yes. The rule is about the intention behind the promise, so it applies equally to a romance scam run on a dating app as to a matrimonial site. A scammer who never intended to meet and asked for money from the outset leaves a record of dishonest intention from the start, which is exactly what the case requires a complainant to prove.

Information for general guidance only and not legal advice. Provisions cited follow the Information Technology Act 2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.

Cyber crime lawyer in your city · Bank account freeze help · Contact