IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR CRR 4269 of 2022 Md. Noor Alam Vs.

State of West Bengal For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Bhattacharjee For the State : Mr. R. Mukherjee, A.P.P, Ms. Puspita Saha Hearing Concluded on : 21st March, 2025 Judgment on : 02nd May, 2025 UDAY KUMAR, J.: –

1. This is an application under Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) filed by the petitioner, Md. Noor Alam, seeking quashing of Rajabagan Police Station Case No. 106 of 2022 dated 16.06.2022 (ACGR Case No. 2572 of 2022) under Sections 417 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and charge-sheet No. 105 dated 18.07.2022, presently pending before the Court of the Learned District and Sessions Judge, South 24-Parganas at Alipore.

2. The case was initiated on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the de facto complainant/victim on 16th June, 2022 with the Officer-in- Charge of Rajabagan Police Station, alleging that the petitioner had established sexual relations with her on 13th January, 2020 at a guest house in Khidirpur on the promise of marriage. She also alleged that this was not an isolated incident as the petitioner exploited the complainant physically over time under the same pretext, and eventually he refused to marry her.

3. After registering this case, the Officer-in-Charge of Rajabagan Police Station, endorsed it to S.I. Subhankar Das for investigation. Investigation culminated into a charge-sheet submitted under Sections

417/376 IPC against the petitioner.

4. The petitioner challenged the proceedings on the ground that the physical relationship between the parties was consensual in nature and was borne out of mutual affection and intimacy and that they were in a romantic relationship over a period of time and not induced by any fraudulent assurance of marriage. Moreover, the victim was fully aware of the nature and consequences of the relationship. Therefore, he prayed for quashing of this FIR, instituted with mala fide intent to falsely implicate him due to a failed romantic relationship, which amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

5. Mr. Indrajit Bhattacharjee, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that:

a. There existed a consensual and intimate relationship between the parties spanning over several years.

b. There is no material to establish that the petitioner had no intention to marry the victim from the inception of the relationship.

6. The continuation of the proceedings amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law as no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out, in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, SLP (Crl.) No. 2793 of 2024. He relied on the paragraphs 19, 21–23, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that –

“Even if the prosecution's case is accepted at face value, it cannot be concluded that the complainant engaged in a sexual relationship with the appellant solely on account of any assurance of marriage… The continuation of prosecution would amount to gross abuse of process of law.”

7. Therefore, he prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding initiated on a false ground, by exercising its inherent powers enshrined under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. Per contra, Mr. R. Mukherjee, learned A.P.P, while opposing the quashing petition, submitted that:

a. The allegations, as disclosed from the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., clearly indicate that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse on multiple occasions under the threat of abandonment and repeated false promises of marriage.

b. The statement of the petitioner to the Investigating Officer reveals an admission of physical relations under the pretext of marriage and that he later refused to marry her.

c. The medical report, though lacking recent signs of force, confirms habitual sexual activity which support