Supreme Court Flags Misuse Of Rape Laws After Break-Ups, Quashes Case Against Ex-Judge Over Alleged Marriage Promise

Reiterating that a breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it is proven that consent was obtained through fraud from the outset, the Supreme Court quashed a rape case against a former judicial officer accused of raping a woman under the false promise of marriage. The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma noted that the complainant was a mature woman (36 years old) and had knowingly entered into a consensual sexual relationship (continuing thereafter for more than one year) with the accused-judicial officer.Terming the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the Appellant as abuse of process of law, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings repeating its stance on the growing trend of resorting to initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour. “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.”, the court observed. The facts of the case were that the complainant's divorce case was pending in the appellant's court in 2014, where he presided as the presiding officer to adjudicate her marital dispute. In the meanwhile, the appellant and complainant grew close and entered into sexual relationships several times allegedly on the appellant's promise to marry the complainant after her divorce. However, after the complainant's divorce, it was alleged that the appellant had cut-off the contact with the complainant leading to FIR registration under Sections 376(2)(f) (rape by deceit), 417 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation). Te rejection of the discharge application before the Sessions Court and High Court prompted the Appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court. Setting aside the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Sharma observed that no fraudulent intent was proven by the prosecution that the appellant never intended to marry the complainant at the time of making a promise to marry. The Court said that the complainant's consent was not out of a misconception of fact as she knowingly entered into the relationship knowing that the appellant was married(separated, but not divorced).“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 court observed. The Court noted that it would be imprudent on the part of the complainant to continue having sex with the Appellant when she believed that the consent was vitiated by fraud from the inception. “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 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.”, the court observed. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, and set aside the impugned findings noting that the physical relationship between the Complainant and the Appellant was consensual, cannot be said to be without her consent or against her will. Case Title: BISWAJYOTI CHATTERJEE VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 404Click here to read/download the judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pijush K. Roy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kakali Roy, Adv. Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia, AOR Ms. Satyama Dubey, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Sk Sayan Uddin, Adv. Mr. Kunal Malik, AOR Mr. Manish Awasthi, Adv.Related Report: For Offence Of Rape On False Promise To Marry, Physical Relationship Must Be Shown To Be Only Based On Marriage Promise : Supreme CourtMere Breakup Of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Cannot Result In Criminal Proceedings : Supreme Court'Hard To Believe Highly Qualified Woman Allowed Man To Sexually Exploit Her For 16 Years On Marriage Promise' : Supreme Court ...

Supreme Court Flags Misuse Of Rape Laws After Break-Ups, Quashes Case Against Ex-Judge Over Alleged Marriage Promise

Yash Mittal

Tags