The Calcutta High Court observed that 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.

It noted that characterising a case as "love jihad" is unsupported by the record when the allegations do not disclose any attempt, inducement, or pressure to forcibly convert the complainant to Islam.

The Court dismissed a revisional application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings against a police constable and his family for alleged identity deception, physical assault, non-consensual sexual intercourse, and forced miscarriage.

The Bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held, "However, upon overall consideration of the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the allegations made by the opposite party no. 2 herself against the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that none of the aforesaid allegations discloses any attempt by the petitioner no. 1 and/or the other petitioners to convert her to Islam, or any inducement, coercion or pressure to that end. The case set up is confined to the suppression of his name, religion and marital status. The characterisation of the case as “love jihad” is therefore unsupported by the materials on record at this stage and has no bearing on this Court’s assessment. 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."


Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharya appeared for the Petitioners, while PP Kallol Mondal and Advocate Moyukh Mukherjee appeared for the Respondents

Brief Facts of the Case

An application under Section 482 of the CrPC was filed seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings under Sections 419, 420, 498A, 323, 313, 416, 120B, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

Petitioner No. 1, who is a Muslim, introduced himself as "Rajib Sarkar" and, under the guise of an issue related to the purchase of a certain item from the shop where she was an employee, obtained her phone number and thereafter pursued her constantly. 

He represented himself as a Hindu and a bachelor, and told her that he was a police constable posted at Belguma Police Line. The Complainant eventually fell in love with him. He proposed marriage, and she agreed to his proposal.

In May 2021, petitioner no. 1 solemnized a fake marriage ceremony with her at a temple in Digha and cohabited with her at a rented accommodation in Bardhaman. Subsequently, the complainant discovered petitioner no. 1's true identity as Md. Rafikul Islam, a married Muslim man with two children.

When she confronted him, petitioner no. 1 allegedly subjected her to severe physical torture, wrongful confinement, and non-consensual sexual intercourse. On 09.07.2021, upon being taken to his ancestral home in Murshidabad while pregnant, the complainant was brutally assaulted by petitioner no. 1 and his family members (petitioner nos. 2 to 11), resulting in her forced miscarriage. Following the refusal of local police to record her complaint, the Magistrate directed the registration of the FIR, against which the petitioners preferred the present revisional application.

Contentions of the Parties

The Petitioner submitted that the entire story of the de facto complainant is concocted, false and fabricated. The de facto complainant, being a gold digger, had initiated a friendly relationship with the petitioner no. 1 herein and, with the advent of time, knowing fully well that the petitioner no. 1 is a government servant and police personnel, grew closer to him. It was submitted that physical intimacy between the parties was consensual.

It was further submitted that during his courtship with the complainant, she never became pregnant and, as such, the statements made in the complaint are false and are only made to attract Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further submitted that the alleged incident of torture is an afterthought to ruin the life and career of petitioner no. 1.

The Complainant submitted that she was deceived and cheated by petitioner no.1 by suppressing his actual religion and his name, and that she was used by accused no. 1 for his sexual pleasure with bad intention to cheat and misuse continuously. It was also submitted that the marriage ceremony at the temple has no value in the eyes of law, as he is not Hindu by religion and no proper legal process was followed.

The State submitted that the case is based on “love jihad”, which should not be ignored and quashed at this stage. 

Findings/Observations of the Court

The primary question for the Court's consideration was whether Petitioner No. 1 induced that relationship and her consent by deliberately misrepresenting his name, religion and marital status, and whether the later acts of assault, forcible intercourse and intimidation were committed.

As regards Sections 416, 419 and 420 of the IPC, the Court observed that the allegation here goes beyond a mere breach of promise and extends to the identity and status of the accused. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. cannot be applied to quash the proceedings at the initial stage without a factual finding that consent was free and informed.

Regarding Section 498A, the Court noted that the opposite party no. 2 herself describes the ceremony as having no legal validity, and that the charge sheet is not confined to Section 498A.

"However, even if that offence was doubtful, the allegations of assault, wrongful confinement, sexual intercourse without consent and forcibly, intimidation and deception are distinct and independently disclose cognizable offences. A proceeding is not liable to be quashed in its entirety merely because one of the sections invoked may not ultimately be sustained", the Court observed.

The Court observed that there was sufficient material against the main accused. The statements recorded under Section 161 of the landlord of the Bardhaman premises, neighbour and the priest disclose his alleged involvement in the offences. 

The Court added, "The allegation of suppression remains relevant to Sections 416, 419 and 420 IPC, namely, whether the petitioner no. 1 represented himself as an unmarried Hindu named “Rajib Sarkar” and whether the consent of the opposite party no. 2 was obtained on that footing. These are questions of fact for the trial court to decide on evidence."

It was concluded that the allegations, read with the case diary and charge sheet, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Md. Rafikul Islam & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026: CHC-AS:1890]

Appearances: 

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharya, Advocate Pratip Mukherjee, Advocate Sk. Md. Ismail, Advocate Sk. Md. Jayed

Respondents: Public Prosecutor Kallol Mondal, Advocate Moyukh Mukherjee, Advocate Abhijit Singh, Advocate Sagnika Banerjee, Advocate Sarmistha Basak, Advocate Anamitra Banerjee

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: