The High Court at Calcutta has dismissed a plea to quash criminal proceedings against a police constable and his family members, holding that allegations of identity suppression and subsequent criminal conduct must be resolved through a full trial. Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta determined that the materials gathered during the police investigation provided a sufficient prima facie case to justify the continuation of the criminal prosecution, rejecting the petitioners' attempt to terminate the matter at the initial stage under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The dispute originated from a complaint filed by a woman who alleged that the primary accused, a police officer attached to the Labpur Police Station, introduced himself as “Rajib Sarkar,” a Hindu bachelor, to develop a romantic relationship with her. According to the complaint, the accused maintained this false identity for years, culminating in a temple marriage in May 2021, followed by cohabitation. The complainant stated that she only discovered the accused’s true identity as Md. Rafikul Islam, a Muslim man already married with two children, after answering a phone call from a woman claiming to be his lawful wife. Following this revelation, the complainant alleged that she was subjected to confinement, physical assault, and non-consensual sexual intercourse, eventually leading to a miscarriage after an assault by the accused’s family members in Murshidabad.

Justice Gupta observed that the central issue is whether the complainant’s consent to the relationship was vitiated by a misconception of fact regarding the accused's name, religion, and marital status. The Court emphasized that such determinations rely on evidence that must be tested through cross-examination, stating, “Whether consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact within Section 90 IPC, and whether the opposite party no. 2 knew the true position, cannot be decided without evidence.”

Judicial Review of Identity Fraud Allegations

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings by arguing that the entire story was a fabrication intended to extort money. They contended that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant had herself suppressed her previous marriage. They further submitted that, given the accused’s profession as a police officer, it was implausible that his true identity could have been concealed for five years. However, the High Court declined to engage in a "mini-trial" to weigh the veracity of these competing claims.

Citing the principles established by the Supreme Court of India in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra , the High Court reiterated that its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised sparingly and with caution. The judge noted that the Court is not required to evaluate the reliability or genuineness of the allegations at the stage of quashing. Since the charge sheet includes multiple serious offences—including Sections 419, 420, 498A, 323, 120B, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code—the Court held that the police must be permitted to proceed with the trial.

Regarding the petitioner's claim that a departmental inquiry had already exonerated the accused of the allegations of impersonation and assault, Justice Gupta clarified that departmental proceedings and criminal prosecutions operate on different standards and objectives. He explained that a failure to produce evidence in a disciplinary forum does not automatically render the allegations of a criminal offence false or malicious.

Analysis of Terminology and Legal Scope

Throughout the proceedings, the label “love jihad” was used by the parties to describe the nature of the relationship and the alleged deception. Addressing this directly, Justice Gupta clarified that the expression has no legal definition within the current framework of Indian law. “There is no single central legislation or Act passed by the Parliament of India that defines or even recognizes ‘love jihad’, let alone criminalise it. Furthermore, West Bengal does not have an active law specifically against the same or anti conversion legislation in effect,” the Court stated.

The judge concluded that the political or social characterization of the case as “love jihad” was unsupported by the materials in the case diary and, importantly, had no bearing on the legal assessment of whether the accused committed specific crimes like cheating or impersonation. The Court’s focus remained strictly on the statutory requirements of the IPC rather than external labels.

Findings on Co-Accused and Procedural Next Steps

The petition also sought to exclude the family members of the primary accused from the proceedings, arguing that they had never met the complainant and were being falsely implicated. The Court rejected this, pointing to the complainant’s statement and a medical report from Khargram Rural Hospital, which documented injuries consistent with the alleged assault. The High Court determined that these factual disputes concerning the involvement of the co-accused are to be settled by the trial court, as the allegations were not inherently improbable.

The judgment concludes by vacating all interim orders and directing the trial court to proceed with the case based on the merits of the evidence presented during the trial. The accused persons, now facing a continued criminal prosecution, will have the opportunity to lead their evidence and challenge the prosecution's claims before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore. The dismissal of the revisional application ensures that the judicial process moves forward to establish the facts surrounding the alleged deception and the subsequent physical harm reported by the complainant. With the intervention denied, the case remains an open criminal matter, awaiting the regular trial process to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused parties involved.