Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 600

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Biswajyoti Chatterjee – Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. of 2025(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024)
Decided on : 07-04-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pijush K. Roy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kakali Roy, Adv. Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia, AOR Dr. Linto K.b., Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Sk Sayan Uddin, Adv. Mr. Kunal Vajani, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Rana, Adv. Mr. Kunal Malik, AOR Mr. Manish Awasthi, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Rape – Misconception of fact – There is growing tendency of resorting to initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour – Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given colour of false pretext to marry, in the event of a fall out – Such lis that amounts to abuse of process of law.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376(2)(f), 417 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 227 – Rape – Misconception of fact – Rejection of discharge application – Appellant had duly informed Complainant that he was separated from his wife – Complainant who was well aware of personal as well as professional background of Appellant, who had been receiving financial help from Appellant for herself and her son, must have carefully weighed her decision before entering into relationship with Appellant – Even if relationship was based on offer of marriage, Complainant cannot plead misconception of fact or rape on false pretext to marry – It is inconceivable that complainant or any woman would continue to meet Appellant or maintain prolonged association or physical relationship with him in absence of voluntary consent on her part – It is from day one that she had knowledge and was conscious of fact that Appellant was in a subsisting marriage, though separated – It is upon having an active understanding of circumstances, actions and consequences of acts, that Complainant made a reasoned choice to sustain relationship with Appellant – Conduct of Complainant/Respondent ex-facie represents reasoned deliberation. (Paras 14, 15, 16 and 18)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376(2)(f), 417 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 227 – Rape – Misconception of fact – Rejection of discharge application – There is growing tendency of resorting to initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour – Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given colour of false pretext to marry, in the event of a fall out – Such lis that amounts to abuse of process of law – Incident is of year 2014 and any further litigation will only prolong suffering of both parties who are living their own separate lives – Physical relationship between Complainant and Appellant was consensual – There is no evidence against Appellant to conclude that there was any fraudulent or dishonest inducement of Complainant to constitute offence under Section 415 IPC – There is also no material on record, that there was any threat of injury or reputation to Complainant – Bare allegation that Appellant had threatened Complainant or her son cannot pass muster of offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC – It would be in interest of justice if proceedings are terminated at this stage itself – Special Leave Petition/Criminal Appeal allowed. (Paras 18, 20, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Question for consideration before High Court, and subsequently before this Court, is that whether allegations against Appellant, as they stand, constitute offence under Sections 376(2)(f), 417 and 506 IPC; and whether case of Appellant is fit for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., 1973.
Findings of Court:
Even if allegations in FIR and charge-sheet are taken at their face value, it is improbable that Complainant/Respondent No. 2 had engaged in a physical relationship with the Appellant, only on account of assurance of marriage.
Result : Special Leave Petition/Criminal Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The Appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the Order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CRR No. 639/2024 filed under Section 402 r/w 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (“CrPC”), whereby the Hon’ble High Court refused to discharge the Appellant in FIR No. 13/2015 dt. 14.12.2015 registered with Mahila Police Station, Haldia, District Purba MDP, Sub Div. Haldia under Sections 376/417/506 IPC (“FIR”) and dismissed the Revision Petition against Order dt. 04.01.2024 passed by the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Purba Mednipur at Tamluk in Sessions Case No. 198/2023.

3. The Appellant is a former judicial officer who has superannuated from the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division), City Civil Court, Calcutta. The FIR was registered at the behest of the Respondent no.2/Complainant, who has alleged that it was in 2014, during the pendency of the litigation arising out of a marital discord with her ex-husband, that she came in contact with the Appellant, then posted as ACJM, Haldia, Dist. Purba, Medinipur. It is the case of the Complainant that the Appellant, who was also separated from his wife, had assured the Complainant/Respondent no.2 that he will marry her and will take complete responsibility of her and her son from the first marriage, as his own, once she gets divorced. The Appellant purportedly kept the Complainant in a rented house at Tamluk, and got her son admitted in Tamralipta Public School, at his expense. The Appellant also regularly transferred money into the bank account of the Complainant for her day-to-day expenses and that of her son. It was allegedly on this pretext that the Appellant had physical relations with the Complainant on multiple occasions. It is alleged that the Appellant also took the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 to his residence in Kolkata, and had repeatedly assured her that he will marry her. However, when the divorce of the Respondent No.2/Complainant was finalized, the Appellant started avoiding her, stopped answering her phone calls and told her not to have any contact with him whatsoever.

4. The Complainant in her statement under section 164 CrPC, reiterated the said allegations and further deposed that it was upon the insistence of the Appellant that she had handed over the cases against her husband to one Advocate Mr. Gopal Chandra Dass, who would not charge any fees from her. It was stated that once her divorce was finalized, the Appellant had stopped receiving her phone calls and had instructed his security guard Anup, to not make calls, otherwise he would harm her son. It was stated that the Appellant had exploited the Complainant, mentally and physically.

5. During the course of investigation, the Appellant was granted Anticipatory Bail by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta vide Order dt. 13.01.2016 in CRM No. 11930/2015.

6. The investigation was transferred to Criminal Investigation Department [CID], West Bengal, which culminated into charge- sheet dt. 30.04.2020 against the Appellant, and Mr. Gopal Chandra Dass. The Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of the same, vide Order dt. 01.05.2020, which was challenged by the Appellant in Revision by way of CRR No. 1550/2020. Vide Order dt. 20.11.2020, the High Court had directed the Appellant to seek appropriate remedies, once the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Revision Petition CRR No. 1550/2020 was ultimately dismissed vide Order dt. 21.11.2022 passed by the High Court observing that there is substance in the allegations and there exists prima facie material to make out a cognizable offence, against the Appellant.

7. The Appellant sought discharge by way of an Application under section 227 CrPC, which was also dismissed vide Order dt. 04.01.2024 passed by the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Purba. The said Order was ultimately challenged before the High Court in Revision, by filing CRR No. 639/2024, which has been dismissed by the High C