False Promise Must Exist From Inception; Calcutta High Court Quashes Rape-On-Promise And Cheating Case As No Dishonest Inducement Shown In Consensual Relationship
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta has quashed the criminal proceedings against a man accused by his former partner, after she married another person, of rape on the alleged false promise of marriage, cheating, and offences under the Information Technology Act. The Court set aside the trial court’s order framing charges and terminated the prosecution against the accused, holding that the allegations, taken at face value, did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences in the facts presented. It noted that the complaint arose from a prior consensual relationship and that the record did not indicate a false promise from the outset or any act of publishing or transmitting private images, while charges invoking Section 66A were legally untenable.
The criminal proceedings arose from a complaint lodged by a woman alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act in connection with a relationship that began through social media. The accused and the complainant became acquainted on Facebook in 2014 and subsequently developed a romantic relationship that continued for several years, during which they met frequently and travelled together. According to the record, the relationship was consensual and known to their families.
In 2020, during the COVID-19 lockdown period, the complainant discontinued contact and later informed the accused that she had been married to another person. Thereafter, allegations were made that the accused attempted to contact her through social media and that she apprehended misuse of photographs taken during their relationship. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered alleging offences under Sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Information Technology Act. A charge sheet was filed and charges were framed by the trial court. The accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction.
The Court noted that “they were involved in a love affair since 2015” and that the relationship had developed over several years through voluntary interaction and mutual consent. From the FIR itself, the Court recorded that “the complaint demonstrates that the relationship progressed voluntarily, and differences arose only when issues regarding marriage surfaced.”
While examining the allegation of rape on the promise of marriage, the Court stated that “the law requires that the promise must be shown to be false from the inception” and observed that there was “no allegation that at the inception of the relationship, the petitioner deceitfully induced the opposite party into intimacy on the basis of a fabricated assurance of marriage.” The Court further noted that the complainant was “well matured and educated” and aware of the nature of the relationship.
On the charge of cheating, the Court recorded that “the element of ‘dishonest inducement’ must be clearly established” and found that the material on record did not prima facie disclose such inducement in a consensual relationship.
With respect to the Information Technology Act, the Court observed that “Section 66A of the IT Act has been declared unconstitutional and struck down” and therefore charges framed under that provision were “ex facie illegal.” Regarding Section 66E, the Court noted that “the opposite party does not allege that the petitioner ever published or transmitted any such image” and that mere apprehension of misuse was insufficient.
The Court also took note that “neither the statement of the opposite party under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded” during investigation and that there was no independent corroborative material. It concluded that continuation of the proceedings would amount to misuse of the criminal justice process.
The Court directed that “CRR 2783 of 2024 is, thus, allowed” and all connected pending applications, if any, “are also, thus, disposed of. The proceeding being Sessions Case No. 49 of 2021, Sessions Trial No. 02(05) of 2023 arising out of Birbhum Cyber Crime Police Station Case No. 03 of 2021 dated January 05, 2021 under Sections 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000… is quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.”
“The order dated May 16, 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court at Suri, framing charge against the petitioner under Sections 376/417 of the IPC and Section 66A(a), (b) and Section 66E of the IT Act is hereby set aside.”
“A copy of this Judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for information,” that “interim order, if any, stands vacated,” and that “case diary, if any, be sent back to the learned counsel for the State.” The Court recorded that “parties shall act on the server copies of this Judgment uploaded on the website of this Court,” and that urgent certified copies be supplied on compliance with legal formalities.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh, Advocate; Mr. Tanmay Chowdhury, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Roy, Advocate; Mr. Debabrata Chatterjee, Advocate; Ms. Sudeshna Das, Advocate (State)
Case Title: XXX v. State of West Bengal & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: CHC-AS:2274
Case Number: C.R.R. 2783 of 2024
Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
