Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal

Read Judgment: https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/fnhk/

Criminal Law – Rape, Cheating, Criminal Intimidation – Consent – False Promise of Marriage – Discharge under Section 227 CrPC.

Appellant, a former judicial officer, accused of rape (Section 376 IPC), cheating (Section 417 IPC), and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC) based on allegations of physical relationship under false promise of marriage. Complainant, aware of appellant’s marital status, engaged in consensual relationship.

Supreme Court held:

(1) Consent under Section 375 IPC requires active, reasoned deliberation; no evidence of false promise made in bad faith or influencing consent;

(2) Prolonged consensual relationship with knowledge of appellant’s circumstances negates misconception of fact;

(3) No fraudulent inducement or threat established for Sections 417 and 506 IPC;

(4) Criminal proceedings initiated due to failed consensual relationships may constitute abuse of process.

High Court’s order dismissing revision petition set aside; appellant discharged.

Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Uday v. State of Karnataka followed.

Case Citation: 2025 (4) KLR (SC) 38 : 2025 INSC 458
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, J.; Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
Date of Judgment: April 07, 2025
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024)
Parties: Biswajyoti Chatterjee (Appellant) v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (Respondents)

Table of Contents

Facts

The appellant, a former judicial officer, was accused by the complainant (Respondent No. 2) of promising marriage while engaging in a physical relationship with her in 2014. The complainant, who was undergoing a divorce, alleged that the appellant, then an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) in Haldia, assured her of marriage, supported her financially, and maintained a relationship with her. After her divorce was finalized, the appellant allegedly distanced himself, leading to the filing of an FIR (No. 13/2015) under Sections 376 (rape), 417 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision petition (CRR No. 639/2024) against a sessions court order denying discharge, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Procedural History

FIR Filed: December 14, 2015, at Mahila Police Station, Haldia, under Sections 376/417/506 IPC.
Anticipatory Bail: Granted to the appellant by the Calcutta High Court on January 13, 2016.
Chargesheet: Filed on April 30, 2020, by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), West Bengal.
Cognizance: Taken by the Magistrate on May 1, 2020.
Revision Petitions: The appellant’s challenges (CRR No. 1550/2020 and CRR No. 639/2024) were dismissed by the Calcutta High Court, affirming a prima facie case.
Discharge Application: Denied by the Sessions Court on January 4, 2024.
Supreme Court Appeal: Filed against the High Court’s order dated February 23, 2024.

Issues

Whether the allegations against the appellant constitute offenses under Sections 376(2)(f), 417, and 506 IPC.
Whether the appellant is entitled to discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Arguments

Appellant

The relationship was consensual, lasting over a year, between mature adults (appellant aged 56, complainant aged 36).
No false promise of marriage was made, as the complainant knew the appellant was married but separated, rendering any promise unenforceable.
No evidence of fraudulent inducement (Section 417 IPC) or criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC).
The High Court’s order was non-speaking and failed to consider the consensual nature of the relationship.

Respondent (State)

The appellant, leveraging his position as ACJM, gained the complainant’s trust and exploited her vulnerability under a false promise of marriage.
Witness statements (security guard and driver) and call data records (CDR) corroborated the complainant’s allegations.
A prima facie case exists, and discharge is inappropriate at this stage, as only a trial can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and discharged the appellant. Key findings:

Consent: The complainant, aware of the appellant’s marital status and professional background, entered the relationship voluntarily. Her conduct reflected reasoned deliberation, not a misconception of fact (relying on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra).
Section 376 IPC (Rape): No evidence supported a false promise of marriage made in bad faith with immediate relevance to the complainant’s consent. The relationship’s duration suggested voluntary consent (Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi).
Section 417 IPC (Cheating): No fraudulent or dishonest inducement was established, as the complainant knew the appellant’s circumstances.
Section 506 IPC (Criminal Intimidation): Bare allegations of threats lacked supporting evidence.
Inconsistencies: The complainant’s claim that the appellant insisted on engaging a specific advocate was contradicted by evidence that the advocate was her college senior who introduced her to the appellant, casting doubt on her narrative.
Abuse of Process: The Court noted a trend of initiating criminal proceedings when consensual relationships fail, deeming such cases an abuse of process.
Conclusion: Continuing the proceedings would prolong unnecessary litigation, as the relationship was consensual and lacked elements of the alleged offenses.

Ratio Decidendi

Consent under Section 375 IPC requires active, reasoned deliberation. A false promise of marriage must be made in bad faith and directly influence consent to constitute rape, which was not established here.
Prolonged consensual relationships, especially with knowledge of the other party’s circumstances, negate claims of misconception of fact.
Criminal proceedings initiated due to failed consensual relationships may be terminated at the discharge stage to prevent abuse of process.

Obiter Dicta

Courts must evaluate consent case-by-case, considering surrounding circumstances, as there is no universal formula (Uday v. State of Karnataka).
The burden lies on the prosecution to prove absence of consent, a critical element of the offense.

Disposition

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s order dated February 23, 2024, and terminated the criminal proceedings against the appellant. No costs were ordered.