The Calcutta High Court has observed that the materials on record did not disclose any attempt to convert a woman to Islam in a case described by the parties as one of “love jihad”, refusing to quash criminal proceedings against a police constable and his family members over allegations of cheating, impersonation, assault and sexual intercourse without consent.

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta observed that the allegations against the principal accused centred on the alleged suppression of his name, religion and marital status, and that the characterisation of the case as “love jihad” was unsupported by the materials on record and in any case, was not defined under any law.

“There is no single central legislation or Act passed by the Parliament of India that defines or even recognizes “love jihad”, let alone criminalise it. Furthermore, West Bengal does not have an active law specifically against the same or anti conversion legislation in effect,” the court said. 

“The characterisation of the case as 'love jihad' is therefore unsupported by the materials on record at this stage and has no bearing on this Court's assessment,” the Court observed.

It further noted that there was no central legislation enacted by Parliament defining or recognising “love jihad”, let alone criminalising it. The Court also observed that West Bengal did not have an active law specifically against “love jihad” or anti-conversion legislation in effect.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Md. Rafikul Islam and other accused seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising from a complaint lodged by a woman who alleged that the principal accused had concealed his actual identity, religion and existing marriage before entering into a relationship with her.

Dismissing the petition on October 15, the Court held that the allegations, read with the case diary and charge sheet, prima facie disclosed cognizable offences. It observed that the accused persons' defences depended on the appreciation of evidence and could not be examined in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

“Interference at this stage would amount to a mini-trial,” the Court said.

The woman alleged that she became acquainted with the principal accused towards the end of 2016, when he introduced himself as “Rajib Sarkar”, represented himself as a Hindu bachelor and claimed to be a police constable. According to her complaint, he pursued her, promised to marry her and entered into a physical relationship with her on that basis.

She further alleged that in May 2021, he married her in a temple at Digha according to Hindu rites and continued to conceal his actual identity. The two subsequently lived together in rented accommodation in Bardhaman.

According to the complaint, the woman discovered his actual name, religion and previous marriage after receiving a telephone call from a woman who identified herself as his wife. She alleged that the accused thereafter assaulted and confined her and had sexual intercourse with her against her will.

The woman also alleged that on July 9, 2021, when the accused took her to his residence in Murshidabad, his family members assaulted her after learning about her pregnancy and attempted to strangle her with a saree. She claimed that she subsequently suffered a miscarriage. The State, however, submitted that the pregnancy had not been conclusively confirmed during the investigation and that the charge under Section 313 IPC had been dropped.

The accused denied the allegations, contending that the relationship was consensual and that the woman had herself concealed her marital status. They alleged that she had threatened to lodge a false criminal case to extort money. The accused also argued that the allegations against the family members were false and that the departmental inquiry against the principal accused had not established the allegations of impersonation and assault.

Rejecting the plea for quashing, the Court held that the documents relied upon by the accused did not constitute unimpeachable material warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC. The defences raised by them could be tested during trial after evidence was led and subjected to cross-examination.

On the allegations of impersonation and cheating, the Court observed that whether the woman's consent had been obtained through a misconception of fact, and whether she knew the accused's true identity and marital status, could not be decided without evidence.

“The allegation here goes beyond a mere breach of promise and extends to the identity and status of the accused,” the Court observed, holding that the decision relied upon by the accused concerning consensual relationships and false promises could not be applied to quash the proceedings without a factual finding that the woman's consent was free and informed.

The Court also declined to quash the entire case on the ground that Section 498A IPC might not ultimately apply if the alleged marriage was legally invalid. It held that the allegations of assault, wrongful confinement, sexual intercourse without consent, intimidation and deception were distinct and could independently disclose cognizable offences. Whether Section 498A was attracted would be for the trial court to decide at the appropriate stage.

Regarding the allegations against the other accused, the Court noted that the woman had alleged that they assaulted her at the principal accused's residence. An injury report from Khargram Rural Hospital dated July 10, 2021, suggested injuries on her body. The Court held that the accused persons' denial of having met the complainant could not be accepted as a ground for quashing the proceedings at this stage.

The Court further rejected the contention that the outcome of the departmental inquiry against the principal accused required the criminal proceedings to be quashed. It observed that departmental inquiries and criminal prosecutions differed in their objectives, forums and standards of proof, and that a finding in the former did not bind the criminal court.

“A finding that the complainant failed to produce evidence before the authority is not necessarily a finding on merits that the allegations are false,” the Court said.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in *Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra*, the Court reiterated that the power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly and that courts should not examine the reliability or genuineness of allegations at the initial stage.

Finding that the allegations and materials collected during the investigation prima facie disclosed cognizable offences, the Court dismissed the criminal revision petition and disposed of the connected applications.

Case: Md. Rafikul Islam & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Case No.: CRR 3501 of 2022