Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently said there is a growing tendency to resort to the initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour, while emphasising that 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. 

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma terminated the criminal proceedings at the stage of charge itself launched against appellant Biswajyoti Chatterjee, a former judicial officer, who was alleged to have maintained physical relation with the complainant since 2014 when he came into contact with her during the pendency of marital discord with her husband.

Having considered the factual matrix of the case, the bench said it was clear that the physical relationship between the complainant and the appellant was consensual, which could not be said to be without her consent or against her will.

"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 bench said. 

Court also noted the incident was of the year 2014 and any further litigation would only prolong the suffering of both the parties, who were living their own separate lives.   

The bench pointed out that a bare perusal of the FIR lodged on December 14, 2015, and the statement of the complainant under Section 164 CrPC, clearly established that appellant and the complainant had come in contact in the year 2014, during the pendency of matrimonial disputes arising out of her marriage. 

It was her own case that during the relevant time, the appellant had duly informed her that he was 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 said.

"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 he was in a subsisting marriage, though separated," the bench noted.

It is upon having an active understanding of the circumstances, actions and the consequences of the acts, that she made a reasoned choice to sustain a relationship with him. Her conduct ex-facie represents a reasoned deliberation, the apex court held.

"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," the bench said.

The court also pointed out that there was 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 he 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. A bare allegation that the appellant had threatened the complainant or her son cannot pass the muster of an offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC," it said.

The bench also found inconsistencies in her statements insofar as she said in her statement under section 164 CrPC, that it was only upon the insistence of the appellant, that she had handed over the cases to advocate, Gopal Chandra Dass; however, the charge sheet revealed that Dass was well known to the her, as a senior in college and it was he who had introduced her to the appellant, in respect of her pending cases.

"This, in no manner, can be a minor contradiction, and casts a suspicion on the entire narrative of the complainant. Notwithstanding, this fact does not in any manner buttress that the relationship inter-se between the appellant and the complainant, was not consensual in nature," the bench said.

The court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the high court's order of February 23, 2024.      

The appellant got superannuated from the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division), City Civil Court, Calcutta. 

When the complainant came in contact with him, she claimed the appellant purportedly kept her in a rented house at Tamluk, and got her son admitted in a Public School, at his expense. 

She claimed, he also regularly transferred money into her bank account for her day-to-day expenses and that of her son. It was allegedly on this pretext that he had physical relations with her on multiple occasions. He had repeatedly assured her that he would marry her. However, when her divorce was finalised, he started avoiding her, stopped answering her phone calls, and told her not to have any contact with him whatsoever.

The appellant was granted anticipatory bail by the high court on January 13, 2016. The appellant was aggrieved by the order of the high court refusing to interfere with the rejection of his discharge application.

Inspector of Police, CID, West Bengal filed an affidavit, stating that there was material evidence on record to establish that the appellant, while holding the post of ACJM, Haldia had used his post to obtain trust of the victim, and had promised to marry her. He said he took advantage of his position and sexually exploited her under the false pretext of marriage.

Case Title: Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs State of West of Bengal & Anr