BISWAJYOTI CHATTERJEE V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (2025)

• BACKGROUND

This appeal arose from the refusal of the Calcutta High Court to discharge the appellant, a retired judicial officer, from charges under Sections 376(2)(f), 417, and 506 IPC. The complainant alleged that she was sexually exploited under the false promise of marriage. The Supreme Court examined whether, even assuming all allegations to be true, the material on record disclosed the commission of any offence and whether the appellant should be made to stand trial.

• CASE NAME AND CITATION

Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal

Citation: (2025) 5 SCC 749, 2025 INSC 458

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1842/2025

Bench: B.V. Nagarathna, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.

Judgement Date: April 7, 2025

• FACTS OF THE CASE

• The appellant(A) and complainant(C) were both living separately from their spouses, where the complainant was undergoing a matrimonial litigation.

• A and C met each other in 2014, Haldia, where A was serving as ACJM.

• A, in her complaint, said that C said he would marry her as soon as her divorce is finalised. And always assured her that he would take responsibility for her and her 11-year-old son.

• Apparently, A placed the mother and son in a rented house at Tamluk. He admitted her to Tamralipta Public School at his expense and regularly transferred money as maintenance to them. 

•  For over years, they maintained a physical relationship, also for which C said her consent was totally based on A’s promise to marry.

• But when C got her divorce decree, he discontinued all the contacts with her; he was not responding to her calls and even instructed his security to threaten A and her son.

• C lodged FIR on 14/12/2015 at Mahila Police Station, Haldia under Section 376/417/506 IPC.

• The case was transferred to the Central Investigation Bureau (CID), and the chargesheet was filed on 30/04/2020 against A and Mr. Gopal Chandra Dass.

•  A got anticipatory bail in 2016, and his earlier revision petition (CRR 1550/2020) was rejected by the high court in 2022. A discharge application U/S 227 CrPC was also dismissed by the Sessions Court on 04/01/2024, for which again a revision was filed, which also got rejected by the High Court on 23/02/2024.

• The case was finally heard before the Hon’ble Supreme Court via appeal.

• LEGAL ISSUES

Issue-1

Whether the allegations, stated in the FIR, section 164 CrPC Statement, and chargesheet, disclose the commission of offence u/s376(2)(f),417 and 506 IPC?

Issue-2

Whether the complainant’s consent vitiated by a misconception of facts from a false promise of marriage?

Issue-3

Whether the appellant is entitled to discharge U/S 277 CrPC, or whether the case requires a full trial?

Issue-4

Whether the high court err in dismissing the revision petition and refusing to exercise its inherent jurisdiction?

• LEGAL REASONING

Analysis of “consent” under Section 375 IPC

The Court examined whether the complainant’s consent was freely given or induced by deception.

• From the complainant’s own version, she always knew:
• The appellant was married, though separated.
• Her relationship with him was not free from complications.

Key observation:

A woman who enters into a relationship with full awareness of the man’s marital status is not misled about a fundamental fact.

Court’s reasoning:

1. She exercised active, conscious, and reasoned choice.
2. She had a full understanding of the consequences.
3. Their relationship was long-term, involving multiple choices on her part, not a single impulsive act.

False promise of marriage doctrine

The Court relied on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (2019) to clarify:

• Two conditions must be met to claim a misconception of fact:
  1. The promise of marriage must have been false from the beginning, made in bad faith, with no intention of carrying it out.
  2. The promise must have been the direct reason for the woman’s decision to engage in sexual relations.

Application to this case:

• No evidence that the promise was fake from inception.
• Their prolonged relationship, financial interdependence, and voluntary association showed genuine emotional involvement, not fraud.

Examination of precedents

1. Prashant Bharti v. State (2013)

A mature woman’s continued voluntary engagement contradicts allegations of rape on false promise.

Applied here:

The complainant was 36 years old, with an 11-year-old child, and was fully aware of the circumstances.

2. Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003)

• “A false promise is not a fact” under Section 90 IPC.
• Consent given in a romantic relationship does not automatically become involuntary.

Applied here:
The complainant’s choice was a product of deliberation, not deception.

Section 417 IPC – Cheating

• To constitute cheating:
• There must be fraudulent or dishonest inducement.

Court’s findings:

• No material to show the appellant induced her by fraud or dishonest intent.
• No threat, enticement, or coercive tactic is shown.

Section 506 IPC – Criminal Intimidation

• Allegations of threats were vague and unsupported.
• No evidence of actual intimidation or harm.

Inconsistencies in the complainant’s version

• She stated she was compelled by the appellant to approach Advocate Gopal Chandra Dass.
• But the charge-sheet showed:
• Dass already knew her from college.
• Dass had introduced her to the appellant, not vice versa.

This contradiction weakened the credibility of her narrative.

Abuse of process

• The court noticed a pattern where failed relationships are criminalised.
• Not every emotional breakdown or disappointment can result in a rape charge.

Key judicial warning:

A consensual relationship cannot be painted as rape merely because it does not culminate in marriage.

Test for discharge under Section 227 CrPC

• At this stage, the court looks for:
• Prima facie material.
• Not a full trial or credibility assessment.

The Court held:

Even taking all facts at face value, no prima facie case of rape or cheating was made out.

• RATIO DECIDENDI

Consent obtained in a consensual, long-term adult relationship is not vitiated merely because the relationship later sours or marriage does not materialise.

• For “rape on false promise of marriage,” the prosecution must show that the promise was false at inception, made in bad faith, and was the direct cause of the woman’s decision to engage in sexual relations.
• Where a woman knowingly enters a relationship with a man who is in a subsisting marriage, she cannot later claim a misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC.
• Allegations of cheating or criminal intimidation must be supported by specific material; vague claims do not justify framing of charges.
• Continuing criminal proceedings in such circumstances amounts to abuse of process, justifying discharge under Section 227 CrPC.

OUTCOMES OF THE CASE

Supreme Court’s Final Decision

• The Court held that the material on record did not disclose offences under Sections 376(2)(f), 417, or 506 IPC.
• The High Court’s order refusing to discharge the appellant was set aside.
• The criminal proceedings (Sessions Case No. 198/2023) were terminated at the stage of charge itself.
• The appeal was allowed.
• No order as to costs.

Reasoning behind the outcome

• Relationship was consensual.
• No fraudulent inducement or coercion.
• The complainant’s knowledge of his marital status negated the misconception of fact.
• Prosecution’s story had contradictions and lacked prima facie substance.
• Letting the trial proceed would prolong suffering and serve no purpose.