The Supreme Court of India has ruled that every consensual relationship cannot be construed as rape merely because it did not culminate in marriage. The Apex Court made this significant observation while setting aside a Calcutta High Court order and allowing an appeal filed by a retired judicial officer accused of rape and cheating under Sections 376, 417, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma emphasized that not every failed relationship should be converted into a criminal case under the false promise of marriage.
“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 fallout. It is such law 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.”
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The Appellant, Biswajyoti Chatterjee, a retired Civil Judge (Senior Division), had approached the Apex Court challenging the Calcutta High Court’s refusal to discharge him from a case filed by a woman alleging rape and cheating.
According to the complainant, during her divorce proceedings in 2014, she met the appellant, who assured her of marriage and financial support. She alleged that the appellant engaged in a physical relationship with her maintained a rented house for her, and took care of her and her son based on the promise of marriage. However, after her divorce, the appellant allegedly ceased all contact.
SUPREME COURT’S OBSERVATIONS
The Court noted that the complainant was fully aware of the appellant’s personal and professional background, including the fact that he was still legally married, though separated from his wife.
“The Complainant who was well aware of the personal as well as the professional background of the Appellant, who had been receiving financial help from the Appellant for herself and her son, must have carefully weighed her decision before entering into a relationship with the Appellant.”
The Bench further said that even if the complainant’s allegations were taken at face value, they do not amount to rape under the law.
“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’. 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.”
“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.”
FINAL VERDICT
Concluding that the relationship was consensual, the Supreme Court ruled that continuing the criminal proceedings would be unjustified:
“In our considered view, considering the factual matrix of the case, it is clear that the physical relationship between the Complainant and the Appellant was consensual, and cannot be said to be without her consent or against her will. In light of the aforesaid, we are also of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the proceedings are terminated at this stage itself.”
The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and charge sheet, setting aside the High Court’s order dated February 23, 2024, in CRR No. 639/2024.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
- Senior Advocate Pijush K. Roy appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
- Advocate-on-Record Astha Sharma represented the Respondents.
CASE DETAILS
- Case Title: Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State Of West Bengal & Anr.
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 458
- Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
- Date of Judgment: April 10, 2025
