According to the complaint, the man assured her that he would marry her and take full responsibility for her and her son from her previous marriage, once her divorce was final. However, after her divorce was granted, the woman alleged that the man started ignoring her and told her not to contact him.
New Delhi, Apr 7– The Supreme Court has clarified that not every consensual relationship should be treated as a case of rape on the grounds of a “false promise to marry” if the relationship fails later. The court also expressed concern about the growing trend of turning failed relationships into criminal cases.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma gave this ruling while hearing the case of a former judicial officer, who was accused of rape by a woman he was in a consensual relationship with.
The top court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s February 2024 order, which had earlier refused to discharge him from the criminal case filed in 2015.
The bench said:
“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.”
Background
The complainant had filed an FIR in 2015 against the retired judicial officer, who had served as civil judge (senior division), city civil court, Calcutta. She alleged that she met the appellant in 2014, during a court case involving her first husband’s divorce. The appellant was also separated from his wife at that time.
According to the complaint, the man assured her that he would marry her and take full responsibility for her and her son from her previous marriage, once her divorce was final. However, after her divorce was granted, the woman alleged that the man started ignoring her and told her not to contact him.
The bench noted that even if all the allegations in the FIR and chargesheet were considered true, it was not convincing that the woman entered into a physical relationship with the man solely based on the promise of marriage.
“Considering the factual matrix of the case, it is clear that the physical relationship between the complainant and the appellant was consensual, and it cannot be said to be without her consent or against her will,” the court observed.
Further, the court added:
“Even if the relationship was considered to be based on an offer of marriage, the woman couldn’t plead ‘misconception of fact’ or ‘rape on the false pretext to marry’.”
The bench also pointed out that:
“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.”
Addressing concerns about any abuse of power by the appellant, the court clarified:
“One might argue that the appellant was in a position of power to exert influence, however, there was nothing on record to establish ‘inducement’ or ‘enticement’.”
Calling the legal case an abuse of process, the bench stated that such litigation only adds more suffering to both parties who are now living separate lives.
“Such litigation amounted to an abuse of the process of the law,” the court said, adding that “any further litigation would only prolong the suffering of both the parties, who were living their own separate lives.”
Hence, the Supreme Court terminated the criminal proceedings in the interest of justice and allowed the appeal.
It also noted that the Calcutta High Court had already granted anticipatory bail to the appellant in January 2016.
Case Title: Biswajyoti Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.
View Order
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
