Biswajyoti Chatterjee vs. The State Of West Bengal

2025 INSC 458
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024


BISWAJYOTI CHATTERJEE …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)



J U D G M E N T

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Leave granted.
2. The Appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved
by the Order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court
of Calcutta in CRR No. 639/2024 filed under Section 402 r/w 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (“ CrPC ”), whereby the
Hon’ble High Court refused to discharge the Appellant in FIR No.
Signature Not Verified
13/2015 dt. 14.12.2015 registered with Mahila Police Station,
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
Date: 2025.04.07
17:42:31 IST
Reason:
Haldia, District Purba MDP, Sub Div. Haldia under Sections
SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024 Page 1 of 12



376/417/506 IPC (“ FIR ”) and dismissed the Revision Petition
against Order dt. 04.01.2024 passed by the Ld. District &
Sessions Judge, Purba Mednipur at Tamluk in Sessions Case No.
198/2023.
3. The Appellant is a former judicial officer who has
superannuated from the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division),
City Civil Court, Calcutta. The FIR was registered at the behest
of the Respondent no.2/Complainant, who has alleged that it was
in 2014, during the pendency of the litigation arising out of a
marital discord with her ex-husband, that she came in contact with
the Appellant, then posted as ACJM, Haldia, Dist. Purba,
Medinipur. It is the case of the Complainant that the Appellant,
who was also separated from his wife, had assured the
Complainant/Respondent no.2 that he will marry her and will take
complete responsibility of her and her son from the first marriage,
as his own, once she gets divorced. The Appellant purportedly
kept the Complainant in a rented house at Tamluk, and got her son
admitted in Tamralipta Public School, at his expense. The
Appellant also regularly transferred money into the bank account
of the Complainant for her day-to-day expenses and that of her
son. It was allegedly on this pretext that the Appellant had
physical relations with the Complainant on multiple occasions. It
is alleged that the Appellant also took the
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 to his residence in Kolkata, and
SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024 Page 2 of 12



had repeatedly assured her that he will marry her. However, when
the divorce of the Respondent No.2/Complainant was finalized,
the Appellant started avoiding her, stopped answering her phone
calls and told her not to have any contact with him whatsoever.
4. The Complainant in her statement under section 164 CrPC,
reiterated the said allegations and further deposed that it was upon
the insistence of the Appellant that she had handed over the cases
against her husband to one Advocate Mr. Gopal Chandra Dass,
who would not charge any fees from her. It was stated that once
her divorce was finalized, the Appellant had stopped receiving her
phone calls and had instructed his security guard Anup, to not
make calls, otherwise he would harm her son. It was stated that
the Appellant had exploited the Complainant, mentally and
physically.
5. During the course of investigation, the Appellant was
granted Anticipatory Bail by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta
vide Order dt. 13.01.2016 in CRM No. 11930/2015.
6. The investigation was transferred to Criminal Investigation
Department [CID], West Bengal, which culminated into charge-
sheet dt. 30.04.2020 against the Appellant, and Mr. Gopal
Chandra Dass. The Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of the same,
vide Order dt. 01.05.2020, which was challenged by the
Appellant in Revision by way of CRR No. 1550/2020. Vide Order
dt. 20.11.2020, the High Court had directed the Appellant to seek
SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024 Page 3 of 12



appropriate remedies, once the case was committed to the
Sessions Court. The Revision Petition CRR No. 1550/2020 was
ultimately dismissed vide Order dt. 21.11.2022 passed by the
High Court observing that there is substance in the allegations and
there exists prima facie material to make out a cognizable
offence, against the Appellant.
7. The Appellant sought discharge by way of an Application
under section 227 CrPC, which was also dismissed vide Order dt.
04.01.2024 passed by the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Purba.
The said Order was ultimately challenged before the High Court
in Revision, by filing CRR No. 639/2024, which has been
dismissed by the High Court vide Impugned Order dt.
23.02.2024.

SUBMISSIONS

8. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Impugned
Order dt 23.02.2024 passed by the High Court is a non-speaking
Order, which fails to take into consideration that the relationship
between the Complainant and the Appellant was ‘consensual’ in
nature and lasted for over a year. It was submitted that both the
Appellant and the Complainant had purportedly taken advantage
of their social relationship and were very well aware of the
consequences of their actions, being mature adults. At the time of
SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024 Page 4 of 12



the alleged incident, the Appellant was 56 years old, while the
Complainant was 36 years old, having a child aged 11 years.
9. It was also argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant,
that the essential ingredient for an offence under Section 376(2)(f)
IPC, being a false promise to marry, could not be fastened against
the Appellant when such promise is unenforceable and illegal.
The Complainant had voluntary entered into a relationship with
the Appellant, knowing fully that he was still a married man and
such an acknowledged consensual physical relationship would
1
not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC . Further, the
ingredients of dishonest and fraudulent inducement are clearly
absent to further constitute an offence of cheating under section
417 IPC, insofar as the Complainant was well aware of the
personal as well as professional background of the Appellant,
before entering into a consensual relationship with him.
10. Per contra , Sri Gautam Saha, Inspector of Police, CID,
West Bengal has filed an Affidavit dt. 21.09.2024 on behalf of the
State of West Bengal, stating that there is 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. The Appellant took undue advantage
of his position and the vulnerability of the

1
Dr. Dhruvaram Muralidha Sonar vs State of Maharashtra [2019] 18 SCC 191
SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024 Page 5 of 12



Complainant/Respondent No. 2 and sexually exploited her under
the false pretext of marriage.
11. It was submitted that there is material evidence on record
and statements of witnesses, Mr. Anup Kumar Malik, (security
guard) and Mr. Pranab Midda (driver) that the Appellant
habitually got into illicit relationships with women, and they often
acted as an intermediary to manage his personal affairs and
helping facilitate his relationships. The CFSL Report further
revealed that the CDR records of mobile number 8116704589 and
9851095961 in the name of Minu Khilari and Pranav Midda, were
being used by the Appellant. The analysis of as many as 4
different mobile numbers shows that the mobile set bearing IMEI
number-355555607033183, which belonged to the Appellant,
was the common device. Ld. Counsel for the State has argued that
there is clear consistency between the narration of
Complainant/Respondent No.2 and the testimonies of the
witnesses, as well as the material evidence collected during the
investigation, that a prima facie case under section
376(2)(f)/417/506/120B IPC is made out against the Appellant.
12. It was argued that the High Court had rightly dismissed the
Revision Petition at the stage of discharge, where the Court is not
2
required to conduct a mini trial. At the time of framing of
charges, only a prima facie case is to be seen; whereas whether

2
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Aryan Singh [2023] SCC Online SC 379
SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024 Page 6 of 12



case is beyond reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at this stage. It
is the assertion of the State, that the Appellant must stand the test
of trial.

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

13. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the
Learned Counsels for the parties and in the present case, the
question for consideration before the High Court, and
subsequently before this Hon’ble Court, is that whether the
allegations against the Appellant, as they stand, constitute an
offence, under Sections 376(2)(f), 417 and 506 IPC; and whether
the case of the Appellant is fit for discharge under Section 227
CrPC, 1973.
14. A bare perusal of the FIR dt. 14.12.2015, and the statement
of the Complainant under Section 164 CrPC, clearly establish that
Appellant and the Complainant had come in contact in the year
2014, during the pendency of matrimonial disputes arising out of
the Complainant’s marriage. It is the own case of the
Complainant/Respondent No.2 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
SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024 Page 7 of 12



her son, must have carefully weighed her decision before entering
into a relationship with the Appellant.
15. 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 the Appellant
was in a subsisting marriage, though separated. It is upon having
an active understanding of the circumstances, actions and the
consequences of the acts, that the Complainant made a reasoned
choice to sustain a relationship with the Appellant. The conduct
of the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 ex-facie represents a
reasoned deliberation, as summarized by this Hon’ble Court in
3
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs State of Maharashtra as under:
“18. To summarise the legal position that emerges
from the above cases, the “consent” of a woman
with respect to Section 375 must involve an active
and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed
act. To establish whether the “consent” was vitiated
by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a
promise to marry, two propositions must be
established. The promise of marriage must have
been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no
intention of being adhered to at the time it was
given. The false promise itself must be of immediate
relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's
decision to engage in the sexual act.”

3
[2019] 9 SCC 608
SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024 Page 8 of 12




16. 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. As rightly observed by this Hon’ble Court in the case
4
of Prashant Bharti Vs State of NCT of Delhi , that it is
inconceivable, that the complainant or any woman would
continue to meet the Appellant or maintain a prolonged
association or physical relationship with him in the absence of
voluntary consent on her part.
5
17. In the case of Uday Vs State of Karnataka , the Court had
acquitted the accused on the basis that she was a mature college
student who had consented to sexual intercourse with the accused
of her own free will. It is unlikely that her consent was not based
on any misconception of fact. In Uday (supra), the Court noted
that:
“21. It therefore appears that the consensus of
judicial opinion is in favour of the view that the
consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual
intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply
in love on a promise that he would marry her on a
later date, cannot be said to be given under a
misconception of fact. A false promise is not a fact
within the meaning of the Code. We are inclined to

4
2024 SCC Online SC 3375
5
2003 4 SCC 46
SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024 Page 9 of 12

18. A careful reading of the evidence on record also clearly
shows that there is 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 the Appellant 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.
SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024 Page 10 of 12



19. On the other hand, we also find inconsistencies in the
statements of the prosecutrix insofar as it is deposed by her in the
statement under section 164 CrPC, that it was only upon the
insistence of the Appellant, that she had handed over the cases to
Advocate, Mr. Gopal Chandra Dass; however, the challan/charge-
sheet reveals that Mr. Gopal Chandra Dass was well known to the
Complainant, as a senior in college and it was Mr. Gopal Chandra
Dass who had introduced the Complainant 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.
20. 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.
21. The incident is of the year 2014 and any further litigation,
will only prolong the suffering of both the parties, who are living
their own separate lives.
SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024 Page 11 of 12



22. 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, 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. Consequently, impugned Order of the High Court dated
23.02.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CRR
No. 639/2024 is set aside. The Special Leave Petition/Criminal
Appeal is accordingly allowed.
23. No order as to costs.


……………………………………J.
[B. V. NAGARATHNA]






……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]

New Delhi
April 07, 2025
SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024 Page 12 of 12