The Supreme Court of India has quashed criminal proceedings against former judicial officer, holding that a consensual physical relationship entered with full knowledge of the existing marriage of the other party cannot be construed as rape on the basis of a false promise of marriage. The Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order dated February 23, 2024, which had refused to discharge the appellant.
Case Background
The appellant, a retired Civil Judge (Senior Division), was accused in FIR No. 13/2015 dated December 14, 2015, registered at Mahila Police Station, Haldia, under Sections 376, 417, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant, who was then going through a divorce, alleged that she came into contact with the appellant—then posted as ACJM, Haldia—who assured her of marriage and took responsibility for her and her son. She alleged that based on this assurance, she entered into a physical relationship with him.
The complainant stated that the appellant provided her a rented house, enrolled her son in school at his expense, and regularly transferred money for their daily needs. However, after her divorce was finalized, the appellant allegedly began to avoid her, stopped all communication, and instructed his security guard to prevent any contact.
A charge sheet was filed against the appellant on April 30, 2020, and cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on May 1, 2020. The appellant’s application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on January 4, 2024. This dismissal was upheld by the Calcutta High Court in CRR No. 639/2024.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellant contended that the relationship between the appellant and the complainant was consensual and continued over a year. It was submitted that the complainant was fully aware that the appellant was separated but not divorced. The promise of marriage, if any, was unenforceable and could not attract the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC. The counsel argued that there was no fraudulent inducement, ruling out charges under Sections 417 and 506 IPC.
On behalf of the State of West Bengal, an affidavit was filed asserting that the appellant had misused his position as a judicial officer to gain the complainant’s trust and sexually exploited her under a false promise of marriage. The State submitted that statements of the security guard and driver indicated a pattern of behavior and supported the complainant’s version. It was argued that a prima facie case existed and that the High Court rightly refused to discharge the accused.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and B.V. Nagarathna, observed that the complainant was well aware that the appellant was still married, albeit separated. The Court stated:
“Even if we take the case of the Complainant at 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’.”
The bench relied on established jurisprudence, including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 9 SCC 608], which emphasized that a false promise of marriage must be made in bad faith and must bear a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engage in a sexual act.
The Court further noted:
“It is improbable that the Complainant had engaged in a physical relationship with the Appellant only on account of an assurance of marriage.”
Additionally, the Court observed inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements—particularly concerning the role of Advocate Gopal Chandra Dass—which, according to the Court, cast doubt on the complainant’s overall narrative.
Final Decision
Concluding that the physical relationship was consensual and that the complainant’s allegations did not meet the legal threshold for the offences alleged, the Court held:
“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.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings and set aside the High Court’s impugned order. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
