RAKESH PRAKASH SONAWANE @ RAKESH PRAKASH SONAWANE vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 665 of 2023
Rakesh Prakash Sonawane @ Rakesh Prakash Sonawane
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the petitioner : Mr. Anirban Dutta,
Mr. Ahin Chakraborty.

For the State : Mr. Saryati Datta,
Ms. Nandini Chatterjee.

Judgment reserved on : 17.03.2026

Judgment delivered on : 22.04.2026

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :
1. The revisional application has been preferred praying for
quashing and/or setting aside of the proceeding in connection
with G.R. case No. 923 of 2017, arising out of Electronic
Complex Police Station Case No. 127 of 2017 dated 20th
November, 2017, under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code,
pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
at Bidhannagar, along with order dated 23.8.2018, whereby the
Learned Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance on filing of
charge sheet and fixed 04.01.2019 for appearance of the accused
person.

Page 2



2. In the present case the proceedings was initiated by the
de facto complainant, on the basis of the written complaint filed
by her. It is stated that she came in contact with the petitioner
through social media. The petitioner states that in course of time
the de facto complainant being informed about the business
skills of the petitioner, had expressed her willingness to meet the
petitioner. While the petitioner being resident of Pune had visited
Kolkata in connection with his work, he met the complainant, in
two different hotels. On the 2nd visit the complainant had
indulged in personal conversations to which the petitioner asked
her to leave. Two days thereafter the petitioner had left Kolkata,
and severed all communication with the complainant, which the
complainant tried to secure multiple times. After near about two
months the instant case had been lodged by the complainant,
who refused medical examination and stated in her statement
under section 164 of the code that she can't remember the
incident at hotel. Subsequently the petitioner was released on
anticipatory bail vide order dated 10.5.2018 passed by this
Hon'ble court on certain conditions, which were subsequently
relaxed by this Hon'ble court vide order dated 25.1.2019.
3. After investigation the investigating agency had
submitted charge sheet being Electronic Complex police station
Charge Sheet No 69/18, under section 376 of the Indian Penal

Page 3



Code against the petitioner on 22/7/2018, of which the learned
magistrate has taken cognizance vide order dated 23/8/2018.
After receiving copy under section 207 of the Code, the petitioner
came to learn that, apart from the delay in lodging the complaint
and the fact of refusal of medical examination by the
complainant, and also the content of the statement under
section 164 of the Code, the authorities of the concerned hotel
had also sent a letter to the investigating agency on 22/11/2017,
stating important facts improbablising the allegations mentioned
in the complaint. But without considering such facts, the
investigating agency had mechanically submitted the charge
sheet against the petitioner, and without considering such
glaring infirmities in the purported charge sheet, the Learned
Magistrate has taken cognizance of the impugned charge sheet.
Hence this revisional application.
4. Written notes have been filed by the petitioner herein and
the State has placed the case diary.
5. On perusal of the said written notes it appears that the
following judgment are relied upon by the petitioner:-
(i) 2025 SCC Online SC 628 Jothiragawan versus State
Rep. by the Inspector of Police & Anr. , (Para 12 and
13).

Page 4



“12. On a reading of the statements made by the victim
before the Police, both the First Information Statement and
that recorded later on, we are not convinced that the
sexual relationship admitted by both the parties was
without the consent of the victim. That they were
closely related and were in a relationship is admitted by
the victim. The allegation is also of threat and coercion
against the victim, to have sexual intercourse with the
accused, which even as per the victim's statement was
repeated thrice in the same manner, when she willingly
accompanied the accused to a hotel room. The victim had
also categorically stated that after the first incident and
the second incident she was mentally upset, but that did
not caution her from again accompanying the accused to
hotel rooms.
13. Having heard both sides in this case, we have
absolutely no doubt in our mind that the criminal
proceedings initiated against the present appellant
are nothing but an abuse of process of the court.
This is precisely a case where the High Court should
have interfered in exercise of its inherent and
extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. These proceedings cannot go on. Hence, we direct

Page 5



that the proceedings initiated at the instance of the
complainant which are presently going on before Sessions
Judge (Mahila Court), Erode in S.C. No. 49 of 2022, be
hereby quashed.”
(ii) 2025 SCC Online SC 1258, Batlanki Keshav (Kesava)
Kumar Anurag versus State of Telangana & Anr.,
(Para 28).
“28. Hence, even assuming that the accused appellant
retracted from his promise to marry the complainant, it
cannot be said that he indulged in sexual intercourse with
the de-facto complainant under a false promise of marriage
or that the offence was committed by him with the de-facto
complainant on the ground that she belonged to the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community.”
(iii) 2023 SCC Online Cal 759, Shiv Prakash versus State
of West Bengal & Anr.
(iv) 2025 SCC Online SC 2528, Samadhan versus State of
Maharasthra & Anr.
“39. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, this Court
formulated the parameters in terms of which the
powers under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (now Section 528 of the
BNSS) could be exercised. While it is not necessary
to revisit all these parameters, a few that are

Page 6



relevant to the present case may be set out. The
Court held that quashing may be appropriate:
“102.
xxx
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of
a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
xxx”
40. In view of the foregoing analysis, we are
unable to concur with the findings recorded by the
High Court, inasmuch as the present case pertains
to a consensual relationship, and the acts of
respondent No. 2 clearly manifest consent to such a
relationship devoid of any coercion, fraud, or
misrepresentation as contemplated in Section 19 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In our opinion, the
High Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction
under Section 528 of BNSS is unsustainable. The
acts complained of in the present case occurred
within the contours of a relationship that was, at
the time, voluntary and willing. The continuation of
the prosecution in such facts would be nothing
short of an abuse of the court machinery.”

6. From the written complaint, as seen from the case diary
it appears that the de facto complainant knew the accused
through social media and was in touch with the accused for

Page 7



three months on whatsapp stating that she was intending to
make some investment. The de facto complainant has stated that
she trusted him and when the accused came to Kolkata she went
th
to meet him on 26 October, 2017. She went to meet him at a
Hotel named Base Group Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and again went with
th
him to this hotel at Salt Lake Sector V on 28 October, 2017.
She even went to a room and had a drink and had discussion on
casual topic and states that as she felt heavy headed, she called
a cab and went to her house at 10.45 p.m. The de facto
complainant states that only after she went her house, she found
some marks on her body and then she realized that she had
been raped.
7. It appears that nowhere has the de facto complainant
stated that she had become unconscious at any time, while she
was in the hotel voluntarily with the accused persons and had a
drink.
8. The statement of the de facto complainant that she
realized that she was raped only after she reached her home
does not find any support from the contents in the written
complaint and prima facie appears to be an afterthought.
9. It appears from the medical report at page 22 of the case
did not agree to medical
diary that the de facto complainant
examination.

Page 8



10. Considering the said facts, it is clear that none of the
ingredients required to constitute the offence alleged has been
prima facie brought on record by the prosecution.
11. Accordingly the proceeding G.R. case No. 923 of 2017,
arising out of Electronic Complex Police Station Case No. 127 of
2017 dated 20th November, 2017, under section 376 of the
Indian Penal Code, pending before the Learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate at Bidhannagar, along with order dated
23.8.2018, whereby the Learned Magistrate was pleased to take
cognizance on filing of charge sheet and fixed 04.01.2019 for
appearance of the accused person, is hereby quashed.
12. CRR 665 of 2023 is allowed.
13. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.
14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
15. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court
for necessary compliance.
16. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied
for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary
legal formalities.


[Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]