The Supreme Court has issued a significant ruling, quashing a rape case filed against a retired judicial officer, and underlined the increasing misuse of rape laws following relationship breakdowns. The Court observed that a consensual sexual relationship, even if based on the hope of marriage, cannot be automatically considered rape unless there is clear proof of fraudulent intent from the beginning.
The decision was delivered by a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma in a case involving Biswajyoti Chatterjee, a former Civil Judge from Calcutta. The complainant, a 36-year-old woman, had accused Chatterjee of engaging in a sexual relationship under a false promise of marriage. However, the court found that the relationship was consensual and based on mutual understanding.
“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,” the bench noted.
Background of the Case
The complaint was registered in 2015 while Chatterjee was posted as the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) in Haldia, West Bengal. The woman was undergoing divorce proceedings in his court when they became close. According to her, Chatterjee assured her of marriage post-divorce and took responsibility for her and her child, even arranging schooling and financial support.
He allegedly kept her in a rented house, regularly sent her money, and they had a physical relationship multiple times. She further claimed that once her divorce was finalized, Chatterjee abruptly ended contact, leading to an FIR under Sections 376(2)(f), 417, and 506 IPC.
While earlier courts, including the High Court of Calcutta, rejected Chatterjee's discharge applications, the Supreme Court found the allegations insufficient to sustain a criminal trial. The court emphasized that both parties were mature—Chatterjee was 56 and the complainant was 36—and capable of making informed decisions.
“Even if we take the complainant’s version at face value, she was fully aware that the appellant was still legally married though separated. Her decision to enter into a relationship was a reasoned and conscious one,” Justice Sharma stated.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Seeks State's Response on Prajwal Revanna’s Bail Plea in Alleged Rape Case
The Court highlighted that the complainant had full knowledge of Chatterjee’s marital status and still chose to be in a relationship, which continued for over a year. Thus, the concept of "misconception of fact" did not apply in this case.
The judgment referred to earlier decisions, such as Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs State of Maharashtra and Prashant Bharti vs State of NCT of Delhi, where it was clarified that consent given by a mature woman in a long-term relationship cannot be later termed as non-consensual solely because marriage did not occur.
“It is inconceivable that any woman would continue to meet and maintain a prolonged relationship without voluntary consent,” the court added.
Additionally, the Court pointed out inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements—specifically her claim about a lawyer being imposed on her, whereas records showed he was an acquaintance from college and had introduced her to Chatterjee. Such contradictions weakened the prosecution’s narrative.
Read Also:- Punjab & Haryana HC Refuses to Expunge Trial Court's Remarks Against Cop in False Rape Case Allegation
The Court found no material evidence to show that Chatterjee had any dishonest or fraudulent intent when the relationship began. It ruled out the applicability of Sections 376 (rape), 417 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation), stating that mere promises, emotional decisions, and relationship fallout do not equate to criminal offenses.
“A false promise is not a fact within the meaning of the Code. There must be clear evidence of inducement or threat, which is missing here,” the judgment concluded.
The bench also noted the delay and emotional toll on both parties and emphasized the importance of ending such proceedings at the appropriate stage to avoid prolonged litigation.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 23.02.2024 and allowed the appeal, bringing an end to the criminal proceedings against Biswajyoti Chatterjee.
“Considering the factual matrix, it is clear that the physical relationship was consensual, and not forced or misled. Hence, the proceedings are terminated in the interest of justice,” the court ruled.
Case Title: BISWAJYOTI CHATTERJEE VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pijush K. Roy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kakali Roy, Adv. Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia, AOR Ms. Satyama Dubey, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Sk Sayan Uddin, Adv. Mr. Kunal Malik, AOR Mr. Manish Awasthi, Adv.
