IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)

CRR 478 OF 2024 Tanmay Majumder VS.

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dutta, Mr. Ajoy Kumar Singhania, Mr. Anirban Banerjee.

For the State : Mr. A.S. Chakraborty, Mr. Kallol Acharyee.

For the Opposite Party No.2 : Dr. Arjun Chowdhury, Mr. Bikash Singha, Mr. Riya Agarwal.

Hearing concluded on : 28.04.2025 Judgment on : 30.04.2025 SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :

1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of impugned proceeding and impugned First Information Report (in brevity F.I.R) in connection with G.R. Case No. 5471 of 2023 arising out of Kotwali Police Station Case No. 777 of 2023 Dated, 20.10.2023 under Sections

417/376(2)(n)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.

2. The petitioner is a distinguished scientist and the Head at the Centre for Excellence in the Vaccine Department at the National Institute of Immunology, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi-

110067.

3. The allegations in the written complaint are as follows:-

I. The complainant alleges that she and the Petitioner were acquainted during their university days in 2003 when they were both students at Visva-Bharati University in Bolpur, West Bengal. During this period, they shared a cordial and friendly relationship.

II. After a prolonged hiatus of nearly two decades, the Petitioner and the complainant reconnected in the year 2022 through the social media platform Facebook. It is alleged that this renewed connection gave rise to a friendly and communicative relationship. Both parties engaged in frequent conversations, which the complainant describes as warm and amicable.

III. During one of their meetings, the Petitioner sought to reassure her of his commitment by promising marriage once again.

IV. According to the complainant, the Petitioner, after a period of frequent interactions, requested the complainant to meet in person. In response, the complainant traveled to Bolpur on 16.05.2023, where she alleges they checked into a hotel. It is claimed by the complainant that during this meeting, the Petitioner established a physical relationship with her. The complainant further asserts that this act occurred under the pretext that the Petitioner had expressed his intent to marry her.

V. She accuses the Petitioner of establishing a physical relationship with her on multiple occasions at various locations, including Bolpur, Siliguri, and Jalpaiguri. These instances, according to the complainant, were characterized by repeated assurances by the Petitioner that he would marry her.

VI. That she eventually learned of the Petitioner's marital status, which he had not disclosed to her initially. This revelation, she claims, caused her to feel deceived and led her to distance herself from the Petitioner.

VII. The complainant further alleges that despite being a married individual with familial responsibilities, the Petitioner continued to pursue her and persuade her to maintain the relationship. She accuses the Petitioner of using manipulative tactics to sustain their physical relationship even after she became aware of his marital status.

VIII. The complainant claims that she demanded the Petitioner fulfill his promise to marry her, despite his marital status. She alleges that the Petitioner initially continued to provide verbal assurances of marriage but subsequently began to avoid her.

IX. The complainant further accuses the Petitioner of making threats when she persisted in her demands for marriage. She claims that the Petitioner used intimidation to maintain their physical relationship and to dissuade her from taking any action against him.

4. The Petitioner herein vehemently denies the allegations, asserts that the relationship was consensual and mutually maintained between two married adults.

5. It appears fro