Supreme Court: Every Consensual Relationship, Where Possibility Of Marriage May Exist, Can’t Be Given Colour Of False Pretext To Marry, In The Event Of A Fall Out

The Court allowed the Appeal by a former Judicial Officer (Appellant) challenging the dismissal of his discharge Petition by the Calcutta High Court for offences under Sections 376, 417 and 506 of the IPC. The Court set aside the Order of the High Court while stating that the physical relationship between the Complainant and the Appellant was consensual, and cannot be said to be without her consent or against her will.

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma remarked, “We find that there is a 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 a colour of a false pretext to marry, in the event of a fall out. It is such lis that amounts to an abuse of process of law, and it is under such circumstances, that we deem fit to terminate the proceedings at the stage of charge itself.”

Senior Advocate Pijush K. Roy represented the Appellant, while AOR Astha Sharma appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Appellant, a retired Civil Judge (Senior Division), City Civil Court, faced allegations by the Complainant, who alleged that during her marital discord litigation in 2014, the Appellant promised to marry her and take responsibility for her and her son. The Complainant alleged that the Appellant maintained a rented house for her, financially supported her and her son, and engaged in physical relations with her based on this promise. However, after her divorce was finalised, the Appellant allegedly avoided her and ceased contact.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court noted, “The Complainant who was well aware of the personal as well as the professional background of the Appellant, who had been receiving financial help from the Appellant for herself and her son, must have carefully weighed her decision before entering into a relationship with the Appellant.”

“Even if we take the case of the Complainant at the face value or consider that the relationship was based on an offer of marriage, the Complainant cannot plead ‘misconception of fact’ or ‘rape on the false pretext to marry’. It is from day one that she had knowledge and was conscious of the fact, that the Appellant was in a subsisting marriage, though separated. It is upon having an active understanding of the circumstances, actions and the consequences of the acts, that the Complainant made a reasoned choice to sustain a relationship with the Appellant,” the Bench explained.

“In our considered view, even if the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet are taken at their face value, it is improbable that the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 had engaged in a physical relationship with the Appellant, only on account of an assurance of marriage,” the Court held.

Consequently, the Court ordered, “In our considered view, considering the factual matrix of the case, it is clear that the physical relationship between the Complainant and the Appellant was consensual, cannot be said to be without her consent or against her will. In light of the aforesaid, we are also of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the proceedings are terminated at this stage itself. Consequently, impugned Order of the High Court dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CRR No. 639/2024 is set aside.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State Of West Bengal & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 458)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Pijush K. Roy; AOR Rajan K. Chourasia; Advocates Kakali Roy and Linto K.B.

Respondents: AOR Astha Sharma and Kunal Malik; Advocates Samrat Goswami, Sunando Raha, Sk Sayan Uddin, Kunal Vajani, Kunal Mimani, Abhinav Rana and Manish Awasthi

Click here to read/download the Judgment