Calcutta High Court finds no evidence of a conversion attempt in case labelled “love jihad”; refuses to quash prosecution

The complainant alleged that petitioner no. 1 concealed his name, religion and existing marriage, represented himself as an unmarried Hindu, and induced her into a relationship and a temple ceremony.

She further alleged subsequent sexual assault, confinement, threats and physical assault by petitioner no. 1 and his relatives.

On her application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Nimta P.S. Case No. 885/2021 was registered.

After investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 419, 420, 498A, 323, 416, 120B, 506 and 34 IPC; Section 313 IPC was not included in the charge sheet.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C., relying, among other grounds, on the alleged consensual nature of the relationship, the invalidity of the marriage, the complainant’s alleged suppression of her own marital status, and the outcome of departmental proceedings against petitioner no. 1.

Whether the allegations and materials in the case diary and charge sheet disclosed a basis to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Whether the alleged invalidity of the temple marriage warranted quashing, particularly of the charge under Section 498A IPC, or the proceedings as a whole.

Whether the departmental enquiry’s findings that certain allegations were not proved required the criminal proceedings to be quashed.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. confers inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, but that power must be exercised sparingly; at the quashing stage, the court does not assess the reliability of allegations or conduct a mini-trial (*Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra*).

Under *Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor*, quashing may be justified by defence material only where it is unimpeachable and of sterling quality.

Sections 416, 419 and 420 IPC concern cheating by personation and cheating; whether consent was obtained through a material misrepresentation is a fact-dependent question, including in light of Section 90 IPC.

A departmental enquiry and criminal prosecution differ in purpose, forum and standard of proof; the enquiry’s result does not bind the criminal court.

A possible failure of one charge, including Section 498A IPC, does not by itself require quashing the entire proceeding where other allegations independently disclose cognizable offences.

The Court found that the parties’ relationship, temple ceremony and cohabitation were prima facie supported by the case materials, while whether petitioner no. 1 deliberately misrepresented his identity, religion and marital status—and whether the complainant’s consent was obtained on that basis—required evidence.

The petitioners’ documents and factual defences were not shown to be unimpeachable, and their competing account could not be resolved in a Section 482 proceeding.

The allegations against petitioner nos. 2 to 11 of assaulting the complainant at the Murshidabad residence, considered alongside the injury report, were not inherently improbable or merely omnibus.

Even if the applicability of Section 498A IPC remained open for the trial court, the allegations of deception, assault and intimidation independently prevented quashing of the proceedings as a whole.

The departmental enquiry did not determine the criminal allegations against all petitioners and did not establish that the prosecution was an abuse of process.

The Court also held that the “love jihad” characterisation was unsupported by the materials and did not affect its assessment of the alleged deception.

It dismissed CRR No. 3501 of 2022 and disposed of CRAN 3 of 2023 and CRAN 4 of 2023; any interim order was vacated.