Supreme Court Allows Appeal, Holds Relationship Was Consensual and Quashes Criminal Proceedings

A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024, challenging the Calcutta High Court’s order dated 23.02.2024 which had refused discharge of the appellant in FIR No. 13/2015 registered under Sections 376/417/506 IPC. The appeal concerned whether allegations that the appellant, a former judicial officer, induced the complainant by a false promise of marriage amounted to rape punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC or constituted offences of cheating and criminal intimidation.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order and terminated the criminal proceedings against the appellant at the stage of charge. The Court held that on the material on record the physical relationship between the parties was “consensual” and that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case of rape by false promise to marry, cheating or criminal intimidation warranting continuation of proceedings. The Court observed that “every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry, in the event of a fall out,” and cautioned against abuse of process in such lis.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In our considered view, considering the factual matrix of the case, it is clear that the physical relationship between the Complainant and the Appellant was consensual, cannot be said to be without her consent or against her will. In light of the aforesaid, we are also of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the proceedings are terminated at this stage itself. Consequently, impugned Order of the High Court dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CRR No. 639/2024 is set aside.”

Background The dispute arose from events beginning in 2014 when the complainant, then involved in matrimonial litigation, alleged that she met the appellant, who was posted as ACJM, Haldia. She said the appellant promised to marry her once her divorce was finalised, provided financial support, arranged accommodation and school fees for her son, and maintained a physical relationship over a period. After her divorce was finalised, she alleged the appellant stopped taking her calls and instructed others to prevent contact. She filed an FIR on 14.12.2015; her Section 164 CrPC statement reiterated these allegations.

The appellant, a retired Civil Judge (Senior Division), obtained anticipatory bail from the Calcutta High Court on 13.01.2016. Investigation by the CID led to a chargesheet dated 30.04.2020 and cognizance by the Magistrate on 01.05.2020. The appellant’s application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 04.01.2024; the High Court dismissed his revision (CRR No. 639/2024) on 23.02.2024, prompting this appeal.

On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had, at the stage of discharge, made out the ingredients of Section 376(2)(f) (rape by false promise to marry), Section 417 (cheating) or Section 506 (criminal intimidation). Applying established principles from precedents including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar and Prashant Bharti, the Court recalled that to vitiate consent by “misconception of fact” the promise must be proved to be a false promise given in bad faith and directly relevant to the decision to engage in sexual intercourse. The Court found inconsistencies in the complainant’s narrative and noted material suggesting the relationship proceeded with awareness of the appellant’s marital status. The Court concluded that the prosecution had not established dishonest inducement, inducement or threat, and that continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of process. The Court allowed the criminal appeal and terminated the proceedings; no order was made as to costs. The judgment noted the incident dated from 2014 and observed further litigation would only prolong the parties’ suffering.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 458 Case Title: BISWAJYOTI CHATTERJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not specified in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Sri Gautam Saha, Inspector of Police, CID, West Bengal (affidavit filed)