Supreme Court quashes rape case against ex-judge, says case filed after consensual relation turned sour

The Supreme Court on Monday quashed criminal proceedings against a retired judicial officer accused of rape, cheating and intimidation by a woman who claimed he had exploited her under the false promise of marriage [Biswajyoti Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.]..A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma held that the relationship between the parties was consensual and that the woman was fully aware that the man was already married to someone else when the relationship began.She fully knew the consequences of her actions and had initiated criminal litigation as a result of the relationship turning sour, the Court noted.Consensual relationships with a possibility of marriage may not be termed as false pretext to marry if one of the partners decides to part ways with the other, the Court underscored."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," the judgement said..The Court was hearing an appeal against a February 2024 Calcutta High Court order refusing to discharge the man from the case, which dates back to 2015.The complainant had alleged that she met the appellant, then a judge posted in Haldia, during a matrimonial case of her own. She claimed that he promised to marry her, provided financial support and had physical relations with her over a period of time. After her divorce was finalised, he began to avoid her and eventually cut off all contact, she alleged.The Supreme Court, however, noted that the complainant was well aware of the personal as well as the professional background of the man, including the fact that he was separated but still legally married."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 judgment authored by Justice Sharma noted. .The Court reiterated that consent to sexual activity under a promise to marry must be evaluated based on whether the promise was false from the start and whether it directly influenced the decision to engage in the act."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...A careful reading of the evidence on record also clearly shows that there is no evidence against the appellant, to conclude that there was any fraudulent or dishonest inducement of the complainant to constitute an offence under Section 415 IPC. One may argue that the Appellant was in a position of power to exert influence, however, there is nothing on record to establish ‘inducement’ or ‘enticement’. There is also no material on record, that there was any threat of injury or reputation to the complainant," the Court noted. .It also found contradictions in the complainant’s version of events, specifically regarding how she came into contact with the lawyer representing her in the matrimonial case and said it cast “suspicion on the entire narrative.”.It warned that not every breakdown of a personal relationship could be turned into a criminal prosecution."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," the judgement stated. The case is an abuse of process of law and allowing it to continue would only prolong the suffering of both parties, who have since moved on with their lives, the Court said while quashing the case..The appellant was represented by Senior Advocate Pijush K Roy and advocates Kakali Roy, Rajan K Chourasia, and Linto KB.The respondents were represented by advocates Astha Sharma, Samrat Goswami, Sunando Raha, Sk Sayan Uddin, Kunal Vajani, Kunal Mimani, Abhinav Rana, Kunal Malik and Manish Awasthi. .[Read Judgment]