Biswajyothi Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal
“Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Criminalized as Rape on a Broken Promise to Marry”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court quashed rape charges against a retired judicial officer, holding that a prolonged consensual relationship between mature adults cannot be converted into an offence of rape under Section 376(2)(f) IPC merely because the relationship ended without marriage. The Court found that the complainant was fully aware of the appellant's existing marital status and had voluntarily entered into the relationship, making it impossible to claim that her consent was obtained by a false promise of marriage.
The Bottom Line
A consensual sexual relationship between two adults who are fully aware of each other's circumstances cannot later be turned into a rape case simply because a promise of marriage was not fulfilled. The Supreme Court cautioned against the growing tendency to initiate criminal proceedings when romantic relationships break down, calling it a potential abuse of the legal process.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Relationship Begins
The complainant, going through marital discord, met the appellant (then ACJM, Haldia) and entered into a relationship. The appellant was 56 years old and the complainant was 36 years old.
Relationship Begins
The complainant, going through marital discord, met the appellant (then ACJM, Haldia) and entered into a relationship. The appellant was 56 years old and the complainant was 36 years old.
Complainant Accommodated at Tamluk
The appellant allegedly kept the complainant in rented accommodation at Tamluk and admitted her son to Tamralipta Public School at his expense.
Complainant Accommodated at Tamluk
The appellant allegedly kept the complainant in rented accommodation at Tamluk and admitted her son to Tamralipta Public School at his expense.
FIR Registered
FIR No. 13/2015 filed at Mahila Police Station, Haldia under Sections 376(2)(f), 417, 506 and 120B IPC after the appellant allegedly failed to fulfill his promise of marriage.
FIR Registered
FIR No. 13/2015 filed at Mahila Police Station, Haldia under Sections 376(2)(f), 417, 506 and 120B IPC after the appellant allegedly failed to fulfill his promise of marriage.
Anticipatory Bail Granted
The Calcutta High Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant.
Anticipatory Bail Granted
The Calcutta High Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant.
CID Files Charge-sheet
The Criminal Investigation Department filed the charge-sheet after taking over the investigation from local police.
CID Files Charge-sheet
The Criminal Investigation Department filed the charge-sheet after taking over the investigation from local police.
Cognizance Taken by Magistrate
The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences based on the CID charge-sheet.
Cognizance Taken by Magistrate
The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences based on the CID charge-sheet.
High Court Finds Prima Facie Case
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a revision petition, finding a prima facie case existed against the appellant.
High Court Finds Prima Facie Case
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a revision petition, finding a prima facie case existed against the appellant.
Sessions Court Rejects Discharge Application
The District & Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur rejected the appellant's application for discharge from the criminal case.
Sessions Court Rejects Discharge Application
The District & Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur rejected the appellant's application for discharge from the criminal case.
High Court Dismisses Revision Petition
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appellant's revision petition (CRR No. 639/2024) in a non-speaking order, upholding the Sessions Court's refusal to discharge.
High Court Dismisses Revision Petition
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appellant's revision petition (CRR No. 639/2024) in a non-speaking order, upholding the Sessions Court's refusal to discharge.
Supreme Court Quashes Proceedings
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the High Court order, and terminated all criminal proceedings, holding the relationship was consensual.
Supreme Court Quashes Proceedings
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the High Court order, and terminated all criminal proceedings, holding the relationship was consensual.
The Story
The appellant, Biswajyoti Chatterjee, was a retired judicial officer who formerly served as Civil Judge, Senior Division (ACJM) at Haldia, Purba Medinipur, West Bengal. The complainant (Respondent No. 2) was a 36-year-old woman with an 11-year-old son who was going through marital discord and divorce proceedings in 2014.
The complainant alleged that she met the appellant while her matrimonial dispute was ongoing. According to her, the appellant, leveraging his position as a judicial officer, assured her that he would marry her once her divorce was finalized. She claimed that based on this promise, she entered into a physical relationship with him. The appellant allegedly kept her in rented accommodation at Tamluk, admitted her son to Tamralipta Public School at his own expense, and regularly transferred money for their living expenses. He also reportedly took her to his residence in Kolkata.
However, the complainant alleged that after her divorce was finalized, the appellant started avoiding her and did not fulfill his promise of marriage. She then filed FIR No. 13/2015 dated 14 December 2015 at Mahila Police Station, Haldia, Purba Medinipur, under Sections 376(2)(f) (rape by a person in a position of authority), 417 (cheating), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
The investigation was taken over by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which filed a charge-sheet on 30 April 2020. Cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 1 May 2020. The appellant filed a discharge application before the Sessions Court, which was rejected on 4 January 2024. His revision petition before the Calcutta High Court was also dismissed on 23 February 2024 in a non-speaking order. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted several critical facts: the appellant was 56 years old and already in a subsisting marriage (though separated) at the time of the alleged incidents, and the complainant was fully aware of these circumstances. The relationship lasted over a year, during which both parties were in regular contact. The Court also noted an inconsistency in the complainant's version -- she claimed she met a particular advocate only at the appellant's insistence, but the charge-sheet revealed that the advocate was actually her college senior who had introduced them.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
The relationship was entirely consensual between two mature adults
The appellant contended that the physical relationship was consensual in nature, lasting over a year between two adults who were fully aware of each other's circumstances. Both were mature individuals -- the appellant was 56 and the complainant was 36 -- and neither was naive about the consequences of their relationship.
A promise to marry by a married person is unenforceable and cannot ground rape charges
The defence argued that a promise of marriage made by a person already in a subsisting marriage is inherently unenforceable and illegal. The complainant, being aware that the appellant was married (though separated), could not have reasonably relied on such a promise as the sole basis for giving consent to sexual relations.
No dishonest or fraudulent inducement existed to sustain cheating charges
The appellant argued that there was no element of dishonest or fraudulent inducement. The complainant voluntarily entered the relationship knowing the appellant's personal and professional background. The financial support provided was consistent with a genuine relationship, not evidence of deception.
Bare allegations of threat cannot constitute criminal intimidation
The defence contended that vague and general allegations of threats without specific details of what threats were made, when, and in what context cannot sustain a charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
Respondent
State of Haryana
The appellant exploited his judicial position to gain trust and sexually exploit the complainant
The State argued that the appellant, being a judicial officer (ACJM), was in a position of authority and trust. He exploited this position to gain the complainant's confidence during her vulnerable period of marital discord, made false promises of marriage, and sexually exploited her.
Evidence from witnesses and forensic reports corroborate the complainant's version
The prosecution relied on testimony from a security guard and driver who allegedly demonstrated the appellant's pattern of illicit relationships, CFSL reports, and CDR analysis of multiple mobile numbers to corroborate the complainant's allegations.
At the discharge stage only a prima facie case needs to be established
The State contended that at the stage of framing charges, the court only needs to see whether a prima facie case exists, not whether the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The material on record was sufficient to establish a prima facie case requiring a full trial.
The complainant was vulnerable and the appellant took advantage of her situation
The prosecution emphasized that the complainant was going through a difficult divorce when the appellant, a much older and powerful judicial officer, made promises to marry her and induced her into a sexual relationship, constituting an abuse of his position of authority under Section 376(2)(f) IPC.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court undertook a thorough analysis of the facts and law surrounding the distinction between consensual relationships and rape by false promise of marriage. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, authoring the judgment, relied heavily on the framework established in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, which distinguished between a "false promise" and a "breach of promise" to marry. The Court found that the complainant was a mature 36-year-old woman who was fully aware that the appellant was 56 years old and in a subsisting marriage (though separated). She voluntarily chose to sustain the relationship over an extended period, which was inconsistent with the claim that her consent was vitiated by a false promise. The Court noted critical inconsistencies in the complainant's version, particularly regarding how she came to know the appellant. The Court also emphasized that every failed relationship involving a possibility of marriage cannot be criminalized, and cautioned against the growing tendency to resort to criminal proceedings when romantic relationships break down. Finding no ingredients of rape, cheating, or criminal intimidation made out, the Court terminated the proceedings in the interest of justice, noting that the case was over a decade old.
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.
The central principle of the judgment -- that failed relationships should not be retroactively criminalized through rape allegations based on broken marriage promises.
The complainant had knowledge and was conscious that the appellant was in a subsisting marriage, though separated. She made a reasoned choice to sustain a relationship.
The Court found that the complainant's awareness of the appellant's marital status negated the claim that her consent was obtained through deception about marriage prospects.
It is improbable that she engaged physically solely due to a marriage promise, and inconceivable that she would maintain a prolonged association without voluntary consent.
The duration and nature of the relationship (over a year of voluntary, sustained contact) was itself evidence of genuine consent rather than consent vitiated by a false promise.
There is a growing tendency of resorting to initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour.
A strong judicial caution against the misuse of criminal law, particularly rape provisions, as a weapon in failed personal relationships.
A false promise to marry must be demonstrably false and given in bad faith from the very inception, with a direct nexus to the decision to engage in the sexual act.
Establishes the precise legal standard for when a promise to marry can vitiate consent -- the promise must be proven to have been false from the beginning, not merely unfulfilled.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
Complete termination of all criminal proceedings. The retired judicial officer was discharged from charges of rape, cheating, criminal intimidation, and criminal conspiracy that had been pending against him for nearly a decade.
Directions Issued
- The impugned order of the Calcutta High Court dated 23.02.2024 in CRR No. 639/2024 is set aside
- All criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 13/2015 registered at Mahila Police Station, Haldia, Purba Medinipur are terminated
- The proceedings are terminated in the interest of justice given that the incident is over a decade old
- No order as to costs
Key Legal Principles Established
A consensual sexual relationship between mature adults, where both parties are aware of each other's circumstances, cannot be converted into rape merely because a promise of marriage was not fulfilled.
For a promise of marriage to vitiate consent and constitute rape, the promise must be demonstrably false and given in bad faith from the very inception, with a direct nexus to the sexual act.
There is a fundamental difference between a "false promise to marry" (given in bad faith from the start) and a "breach of promise to marry" (genuine promise that could not be fulfilled). Only the former can vitiate consent.
A promise to marry made by a person already in a subsisting marriage is inherently unenforceable and a mature person aware of this status cannot claim consent was vitiated by such a promise.
Courts must examine whether the woman was aware of the man's marital status and other relevant circumstances, as this knowledge negates the claim of consent obtained by deception.
Criminal law should not be used as a weapon when romantic relationships break down; the growing tendency to initiate criminal proceedings in such situations amounts to abuse of the legal process.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- A failed romantic relationship does not automatically become a criminal case. If you are a mature adult who voluntarily entered a consensual relationship with full knowledge of the other person's circumstances, the relationship cannot later be called rape just because it did not end in marriage.
- If someone promises to marry you but is already married (even if separated), you should know that such a promise is legally unenforceable. Entering a relationship based on such a promise may not give you grounds for criminal charges if the relationship ends.
- The law distinguishes between being deceived into a relationship by a false promise (which could be a crime) and a genuine promise that was later broken (which is not a crime). The key question is whether the promise was made dishonestly from the start.
- If you are going through a vulnerable period like a divorce, be cautious about new relationships. While the law protects against genuine exploitation, it does not criminalize consensual relationships between aware adults.
- Criminal cases based on allegations of false promise to marry can take many years to resolve. In this case, proceedings lasted nearly a decade before the Supreme Court intervened to quash them.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 21
Constitution of India
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Relevance: The prolonged criminal proceedings (nearly a decade) against the appellant implicated his right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court's decision to terminate proceedings was partly grounded in preventing further deprivation of liberty through abuse of criminal process.
Statutory Provisions
Section 376(2)(f)
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever being a relative, guardian, or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years.”
Relevance: The primary charge against the appellant, alleging that as a judicial officer he was in a position of trust and authority and committed rape on the complainant. The Court held that the relationship was consensual and no exploitation of position was proven.
Section 375
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“A man is said to commit rape if he has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances including where consent is given under misconception of fact or by a person in a position of authority.”
Relevance: The Court examined whether the complainant's consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact (false promise of marriage) and concluded that it was not, as she was fully aware of the appellant's circumstances.
Section 417
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”
Relevance: The charge of cheating against the appellant. The Court found no evidence of dishonest or fraudulent inducement to sustain this charge.
Section 506
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
Relevance: The charge of criminal intimidation. The Court held that bare allegations of threats without specific details cannot constitute this offence.
Section 120B
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall be punished.”
Relevance: The conspiracy charge against the appellant. This charge was also terminated along with all other proceedings.
Section 227
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
“If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused.”
Relevance: The appellant sought discharge under this provision. The Sessions Court and High Court refused discharge, but the Supreme Court effectively discharged him by terminating all proceedings.
Related Cases & Precedents
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra
followed(2019) 9 SCC 608
Key precedent distinguishing between a "false promise to marry" and a "breach of promise to marry." Established that consent is vitiated only when the promise was false from inception, requiring active and reasoned deliberation toward the proposed act.
Uday v. State of Karnataka
followed(2003) 4 SCC 46
Held that consent given by a prosecutrix who was aware of the accused's circumstances cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact. Applied to find that the complainant's consent was voluntary.
Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi
followed2024 SCC Online SC 3375
Recent precedent on the distinction between consensual relationships and rape on false promise of marriage, reinforcing the principle that mature adults in voluntary relationships cannot later criminalize them.
Dr. Dhruvaram Muralidha Sonar v. State of Maharashtra
cited(2019) 18 SCC 191
Held that a clear distinction must be drawn between rape and consensual sex. If the complainant was a willing participant, the act cannot be termed rape merely because the relationship did not culminate in marriage.
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh
cited(2023) SCC Online SC 379
Cited by the respondent on the scope of judicial inquiry at the discharge stage, establishing that only a prima facie case needs to be examined at the charge-framing stage.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena
(2015) 6 SCC 353
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied - The Call for Swift Maintenance Orders
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.