“‘Every Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Painted as Rape’: Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Retired Judicial Officer, Citing Abuse of Process”
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed a criminal appeal filed by a retired judicial officer and quashed proceedings arising out of an FIR registered in 2015 under Sections 376, 417, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the physical relationship between the parties was consensual and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the order of the Calcutta High Court refusing to discharge the appellant was set aside, and all pending criminal proceedings were terminated.
The matter arose from FIR No. 13/2015 dated 14.12.2015 registered at Mahila Police Station, Haldia, District Purba Medinipur, West Bengal. The FIR was lodged by the complainant (Respondent No. 2), alleging that the appellant, then serving as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), had established a physical relationship with her on the false promise of marriage. The appellant was later elevated as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) and retired from judicial service.
According to the complainant, she had come into contact with the appellant during ongoing litigation with her former husband. She alleged that the appellant had expressed his intention to marry her once her divorce was finalized and had promised to take care of her and her son from the earlier marriage. The complainant was allegedly housed in a rented accommodation at the appellant’s expense, and her son was admitted to a private school with the appellant bearing all costs.
She further stated that the appellant had frequent physical relations with her on the strength of these assurances and even took her to his residence in Kolkata, where he reaffirmed his promise of marriage. After the divorce was finalized, she claimed that the appellant began avoiding her, stopped answering her calls, and eventually instructed his security staff to prevent further communication.
The complainant reiterated her allegations in a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She further claimed that she was asked to hand over her legal cases to a particular advocate who allegedly worked on instructions from the appellant.
The appellant was granted anticipatory bail by the Calcutta High Court on 13.01.2016. Investigation was later transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which filed a charge sheet on 30.04.2020 under Sections 376, 417, and 506 IPC. Cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 01.05.2020. The appellant's challenge to the cognizance order was dismissed by the High Court on 21.11.2022, finding that a prima facie case was made out.
Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Section 227 CrPC seeking discharge, which was rejected by the District & Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur on 04.01.2024. The appellant filed a criminal revision petition before the Calcutta High Court under Sections 402 and 482 CrPC, which was dismissed on 23.02.2024.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court recorded that the allegations in the FIR and the Section 164 CrPC statement showed that the complainant had full knowledge that the appellant was separated but still legally married. The Bench noted: “The Complainant who was well aware of the personal as well as the professional background of the Appellant… must have carefully weighed her decision before entering into a relationship with the Appellant.”
The Court referred to prior rulings on consent and false promises of marriage and cited Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [2019] 9 SCC 608 to clarify the test for consent vitiated by misconception of fact. It quoted: “The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given.”
The Bench remarked that even if the complainant’s version was accepted at face value, her conduct indicated an active and reasoned deliberation. It held: “It is improbable that the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 had engaged in a physical relationship with the Appellant, only on account of an assurance of marriage.”
Referring to Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi 2024 SCC Online SC 3375 , the Court stated: “It is inconceivable, that the complainant or any woman would continue to meet the Appellant or maintain a prolonged association… in the absence of voluntary consent.”
In examining the ingredients of Section 417 IPC (cheating), the Court held that the charge of dishonest inducement was not substantiated: “There is no evidence against the Appellant, to conclude that there was any fraudulent or dishonest inducement… to constitute an offence under Section 415 IPC.”
It also found the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC unsupported:
“A bare allegation that the Appellant had threatened the Complainant or her son cannot pass the muster of an offence of criminal intimidation.”
Addressing broader legal concerns, the Court stated: “There is a growing tendency of resorting to initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour.”
It added: “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.”
The Court concluded that continuing proceedings in such cases amounted to abuse of process: “It is under such circumstances, that we deem fit to terminate the proceedings at the stage of charge itself.”
The Court held that the physical relationship between the complainant and the appellant was consensual and could not be said to be without her consent or against her will. It ruled that the allegations, even if taken at face value, failed to disclose any offence under Sections 376(2)(f), 417, or 506 IPC.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal. The judgment dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Calcutta High Court in CRR No. 639/2024 was set aside.
The Court quashed all criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 13/2015 registered at Mahila Police Station, Haldia. No costs were imposed.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Pijush K. Roy, Senior Advocate; Ms. Kakali Roy, Advocate; Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia, AOR; Dr. Linto K.B., Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR; Mr. Samrat Goswami, Advocate; Mr. Sunando Raha, Advocate; Mr. Sk Sayan Uddin, Advocate; Mr. Kunal Vajani, Advocate; Mr. Kunal Mimani, Advocate; Mr. Abhinav Rana, Advocate; Mr. Kunal Malik, AOR; Mr. Manish Awasthi, Advocate
Case Title: Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 458
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna , Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
[Read/Download order]
