The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of rape under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, ruling that the complaint, made years after an alleged consensual relationship based on a promise of marriage, was an abuse of the process of law.
The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar allowed the criminal appeal filed by the accused, who had challenged the Calcutta High Court’s refusal to quash the case against him, even though it had granted relief to his parents and uncle.
Background
The accused was facing charges under Sections 417 (cheating), 376 (rape), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 IPC, along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix, who at the time of the FIR was a major. She claimed that she had entered into a physical relationship with the accused over three years earlier when she was 15 years old, allegedly on the basis of a promise of marriage.
According to the FIR, after she became a major, the accused backed out of the promise, and her humiliation by his parents led her to file a police complaint against him and his family.
While the Calcutta High Court quashed the FIR against the accused’s father, mother, and uncle, it declined to quash the proceedings against him, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The State and the complainant opposed the plea, arguing that any consent given by a minor is invalid and that the offence of rape was made out, especially under the POCSO Act.
However, the Supreme Court found that there was “absolutely no evidence, and definitely no forensic evidence” to support the allegation that the accused had committed rape when the prosecutrix was a minor.
The bench noted that the FIR was lodged more than three years after the alleged incident and seemed aimed at invoking the POCSO Act. The Court recorded that the prosecutrix herself had “categorically stated that she consented to the act as there was a promise of marriage.”
Referring to previous judgments, including Prithivirajan v. State, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, the Court reiterated:
“This Court has held in several decisions that promise to marriage and the subsequent physical relationship between the two with consent would not amount to rape and the reasons therein have been assigned.”
It concluded that the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings were “nothing but an abuse of the process of law,” and that the High Court should have extended the same relief to the accused as it did to the co-accused family members.
Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused.
“Under the present facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the evidence with the prosecution, particularly the long delay in lodging the FIR itself suggests that the present criminal proceedings lodged against the appellant are nothing but an abuse of the process of law.”
All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
Case Title: Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. ______ of 2025 (arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 7004/2025)
