The Calcutta High Court dismissed criminal proceedings, holding that a prolonged consensual relationship cannot be termed rape in marriage. Chaitali Chatterjee Das noted that years of intimacy, shared travel, and voluntary hotel stays reflected mutual consent, not misconception.
KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court has dismissed criminal proceedings against a man accused of rape, cheating, and causing miscarriage, stating that a long-term consensual relationship cannot be labeled as rape simply because it did not lead to marriage.
The bench, led by Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, found that maintaining a physical relationship for several years, traveling together, and voluntarily staying in hotels demonstrated mutual consent rather than a misconception.
The court was reviewing a revisional application (Anirban Mukherjee vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.) to quash a chargesheet filed under Sections 417 (cheating), 376 (rape), 313 (causing miscarriage without the woman’s consent), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner contested the proceedings related to Shalbani Police Station Case No. 38/2022. Justice Das accepted the application and annulled the chargesheet and ongoing proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Paschim Medinipur, ruling that continuing the prosecution would constitute a “gross abuse of the process of law.”
ALSO READ: ‘Bundle of Lies’: Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR Filed on False Promise of Marriage
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed by the victim on February 16, 2022. She claimed she began a friendship with the petitioner, her senior, in 2017, which developed into a romantic relationship. The complainant alleged that on March 10, 2018, the petitioner forced her to consume alcohol, leading her to lose consciousness, and she awoke in a hotel room having been raped.
She asserted that the petitioner promised to marry her, and under that assurance, she continued the relationship. The complainant admitted to traveling with him to Digha in June 2018 and Goa in 2020, where they stayed in various hotels and his residence. She later became pregnant and alleged that the petitioner forced her to have an abortion while promising marriage in the future.
The relationship deteriorated when the petitioner allegedly refused to marry her and threatened to release intimate photos.The police investigated the claims and submitted a chargesheet on July 21, 2022.
Arguments of the Parties:
Senior Advocate Rajdeep Mazumder, representing the petitioner, argued that the allegations did not constitute the offenses charged. He noted that the complainant, an educated adult, was involved in the relationship from 2017 to 2022. Despite the alleged incident in 2018, the victim continued the relationship voluntarily, traveling to locations like Digha and Goa and staying with the petitioner at hotels and his home.
Concerning the abortion, the defense argued that medical records indicated the procedure was performed with both the complainant’s and petitioner’s consent, with him listed as her guardian. Mr. Mazumder maintained that the relationship was consensual and aimed at marriage, asserting that a mere breach of promise does not amount to rape. He cited various Supreme Court precedents, including State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal and Samadhan vs. State of Maharashtra.
Advocate Triparna Roy, representing the opposite party (the complainant), strongly opposed the plea, arguing that the victim’s consent for the physical relationship was solely based on the promise of marriage. She stressed the allegations of coercion and forced abortion, contending that the chargesheet establishes a prima facie case warranting a trial.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das reviewed the facts and noted the long-standing relationship between the parties. The court highlighted that-
“they indulged into sexual activity, spent nights together at various hotels like Digha, Park Street, Kharagpur, Goa, lived like husband and wife.”
- Regarding the rape allegation under Section 376 IPC:
The court pointed out that the victim continued the relationship for years following the alleged incident in 2018.
The court observed,
“Instead of lodging any complaint against the petitioner, she further indulged herself to continue the relationship and traveled to different places with him. So as of now, nothing suggests that at any point of time she was under misconception for the last 5/6 years,”
The court referenced the Supreme Court ruling in Samadhan vs. State of Maharashtra, reiterating that a mere breakup in a consensual relationship cannot result in criminal proceedings.
- On the question of “misconception of fact” under Section 90 of the IPC:
The court referred to Anurag Sony vs. State of Chhattisgarh, stating that for consent to be invalidated, it must be demonstrated that the accused had no intention to marry from the outset.
The court concluded,
“It is therefore clear that the accused cannot be held liable for the offence of Rape,”
- Regarding the Section 313 IPC charge (causing miscarriage):
The court determined that the abortion in 2021 complied with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules with the complainant’s consent.
Highlighting that the events in question occurred long ago, and she continued the relationship until 2022,the judgment stated,
“The allegations also do not inspire confidence to construe an offence under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,”
- In addressing Section 417 IPC (cheating):
The court ruled,
“There must have been fraudulent or dishonest intention at the very inception… However, they traveled together voluntarily on multiple occasions, stayed together, and acted in a manner akin to husband and wife. Such conduct clearly indicates mutual consent and companionship rather than inducement by deception.”
Decision:
The High Court concluded that the necessary elements to support the charges were entirely absent. Referring to the continuation of the case as “sheer abuse of the process of the court,” Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das upheld the revisional application and quashed the ongoing proceedings.
Case Title: Anirban Mukherjee vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. CRR 3937 of 2022
Read Attachment: