The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of rape, cheating, and causing miscarriage, observing that a long-standing consensual relationship cannot be termed as rape merely because it did not result in marriage. The bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das held that continuing a physical relationship for several years, traveling together, and staying in hotels voluntarily indicates mutual consent, not a misconception of fact.
The court was hearing a revisional application (Anirban Mukherjee vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.) seeking to quash a chargesheet filed under Sections 417 (cheating), 376 (rape), 313 (causing miscarriage without woman’s consent), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner challenged the proceedings arising out of Shalbani Police Station Case No. 38/2022.
Justice Das allowed the application, quashing the chargesheet and the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur, ruling that allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to a “gross abuse of the process of law.”
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint lodged by the victim on February 16, 2022. She alleged that she developed a friendship with the petitioner, her senior, in 2017, which evolved into a romantic relationship. The complainant claimed that on March 10, 2018, the petitioner forced her to consume liquor, causing her to lose consciousness. She alleged she woke up in a hotel room to find she had been raped.
The complainant further stated that the petitioner promised to marry her, and on this assurance, she continued the relationship. She admitted to traveling with him to Digha in June 2018 and later to Goa in 2020, staying in various hotels and his house. She eventually became pregnant, and alleged that the petitioner compelled her to undergo an abortion while promising marriage in the future. The relationship ultimately soured when the petitioner refused to marry her and allegedly threatened to leak intimate photographs.
The police investigated and submitted a chargesheet on July 21, 2022.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Advocate Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the allegations did not constitute the offences charged. He highlighted that the complainant, an educated adult, maintained the relationship from 2017 to 2022. He submitted that despite the alleged incident in 2018, the victim voluntarily continued the relationship, traveled to holiday destinations like Digha and Goa, and stayed with the petitioner at hotels and his residence.
Regarding the abortion, the defense argued that medical records showed the procedure was done with the consent of both the complainant and the petitioner, who signed as her guardian. Mr. Mazumder contended that the relationship was consensual and wanted to fructify into marriage, but a mere breach of promise does not constitute rape. He relied on Supreme Court judgments, including State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal and Samadhan vs. State of Maharashtra.
Advocate Ms. Triparna Roy, representing the Opposite Party No. 2 (the complainant), vehemently opposed the plea. She argued that the victim’s consent for the physical relationship was obtained solely on the assurance of marriage. She emphasized the allegations of threatening and forced abortion, stating that the chargesheet made out a prima facie case that should be tested during trial.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das examined the factual matrix and noted the admitted long-standing relationship between the parties. The Court observed that they “indulged into sexual activity, spent nights together at various hotels like Digha, Park Street, Kharagpur, Goa, lived like husband and wife.”
Regarding the allegation of rape under Section 376 IPC, the Court noted that the victim continued the relationship for years after the alleged initial incident in 2018.
“Instead of lodging any complaint against the petitioner she various further indulged herself to continue the relationship and again different places with the petitioner. So as of now nothing suggest that at any point of time she was under misconception for last 5/6 years,” the Court observed.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Samadhan vs. State of Maharashtra, reiterating that a mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in criminal proceedings.
On the issue of “misconception of fact” under Section 90 of the IPC, the Court referred to Anurag Sony vs. State of Chhattisgarh, stating that for consent to be vitiated, it must be proved that the accused had no intention to marry from the very inception.
“It is therefore clear that the accused cannot be held liable for the offence of Rape,” the Court stated.
Regarding the charge under Section 313 IPC (causing miscarriage), the Court found that the termination of pregnancy in 2021 was conducted under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules with the consent of the complainant.
“The allegation also do not inspire confidence to construe an offence constituted under Section 313 Cr.P.C… which took place long back in the year 2020 and she further continued with the relationship till 2022,” the judgment read.
Addressing Section 417 IPC (Cheating), the Court held:
“There must have a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the very inception… but they travelled together voluntarily on multiple occasions, stayed together and conducted in the manner akin to husband and wife. Such conduct clearly indicates mutual consent and companionship rather than inducement by deception.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the essential ingredients to attract the charges were wholly absent. Terming the continuation of the case as “sheer abuse of the process of the court,” Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das allowed the revisional application and quashed the pending proceedings.
Case Details:
Case Title: Anirban Mukherjee vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No.: CRR 3937 of 2022
Bench: Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pritam Roy, Adv.
Counsel for State: Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Ld. A.P.P., Mr. Manoranjan Mahata, Adv. Counsel for OP No. 2: Ms. Triparna Roy, Adv.
