Introduction
On April 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024), overturning the Calcutta High Court’s refusal to discharge the appellant, a former judicial officer, from charges under Sections 376(2)(f) (rape by a person in a position of trust or authority), 417 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court’s ruling reaffirmed the nuanced judicial approach to distinguishing consensual relationships from those vitiated by false promises, particularly in the context of allegations of rape under the pretext of marriage. This article provides a detailed legal analysis of the judgment, exploring its implications for consent, the evidentiary threshold at the discharge stage, and the broader socio-legal landscape surrounding such cases in India.
Factual Background
The appellant, Biswajyoti Chatterjee, a retired Civil Judge (Senior Division), was accused by the complainant (Respondent No. 2) of exploiting her under a false promise of marriage. The complainant, a 36-year-old divorcee with an 11-year-old son, alleged that in 2014, while her divorce proceedings were pending, she met the appellant, then an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) in Haldia. She claimed that the appellant, who was separated but not divorced from his wife, assured her of marriage and assumed financial responsibility for her and her son, including renting a house and funding her son’s education. The relationship allegedly involved multiple instances of physical intimacy, but after her divorce was finalized, the appellant distanced himself, refusing contact and allegedly threatening her son through intermediaries.
The FIR, filed on December 14, 2015, led to a chargesheet in 2020, implicating the appellant and an advocate, Gopal Chandra Dass, under multiple IPC sections. Despite securing anticipatory bail and challenging the proceedings at various stages, the appellant’s discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was rejected by the Sessions Court and upheld by the Calcutta High Court in its impugned order dated February 23, 2024. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and ultimately allowed the petition, terminating the proceedings.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court framed two central questions:
- Whether the allegations against the appellant constituted offenses under Sections 376(2)(f), 417, and 506 IPC.
- Whether the appellant was entitled to discharge under Section 227 CrPC based on the material on record.
These issues required the Court to assess the nature of consent in the complainant’s relationship with the appellant, the evidentiary threshold at the discharge stage, and the applicability of legal precedents on false promises to marry.
Analysis of the Judgment
1. Consent and the False Promise of Marriage
The cornerstone of the Supreme Court’s reasoning was its interpretation of consent under Section 375 IPC, which defines rape as sexual intercourse without consent or under specific vitiating circumstances, such as a misconception of fact. The complainant alleged that her consent was procured under a false promise of marriage, invoking Section 376(2)(f) due to the appellant’s position of authority as a judicial officer.
The Court relied heavily on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, which established that for consent to be vitiated by a promise of marriage, the promise must be false, made in bad faith with no intent to fulfill it, and must directly induce the sexual act. The Court found that the complainant, fully aware of the appellant’s marital status (separated but not divorced), entered the relationship with “active and reasoned deliberation.” It emphasized that her prolonged association with the appellant—spanning over a year, involving financial support and cohabitation—undermined the claim of a misconception of fact. Citing Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46, the Court reiterated that a false promise does not inherently constitute a “fact” under the IPC unless it overrides voluntary consent, a threshold not met here given the complainant’s maturity and awareness.
This reasoning aligns with Dr. Dhruvaram Muralidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 18 SCC 191, where the Court held that a consensual relationship with a married man, known to the woman, does not amount to rape unless coercion or deceit is proven. The Chatterjee judgment extends this principle, emphasizing that the complainant’s agency and informed choice negated the prosecution’s case under Section 376 IPC.
2. Cheating and Criminal Intimidation
The Court also dismissed the charges under Sections 417 and 506 IPC. For cheating (Section 415 IPC), there must be dishonest inducement causing harm. The appellant argued, and the Court agreed, that no fraudulent intent was evident, as the complainant knew his personal and professional background. The Court noted inconsistencies in her narrative—such as her claim that the appellant forced her to engage Advocate Gopal Chandra Dass, contradicted by evidence that Dass was her college senior who introduced her to the appellant—casting doubt on her allegations.
Regarding criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC), the Court found no substantive evidence of threats beyond bare assertions, insufficient to establish a prima facie case. This reflects a strict interpretation of the prosecution’s burden to prove each ingredient of an offense, as highlighted in Uday (supra).
3. Discharge under Section 227 CrPC
Section 227 CrPC empowers a court to discharge an accused if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, requiring only a prima facie assessment without a mini-trial (Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC Online SC 379). The State argued that the High Court correctly declined discharge, citing witness statements and call detail records (CDR) suggesting the appellant’s habitual illicit relationships. However, the Supreme Court held that these did not establish the specific offenses alleged. It criticized the High Court’s “non-speaking order” for failing to engage with the consensual nature of the relationship, effectively shifting the burden to the appellant prematurely.
The Court’s decision to terminate proceedings at the charge stage reflects its broader concern about the misuse of criminal law in failed relationships. It observed a “growing tendency” to criminalize consensual relationships that sour, echoing Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi (2024 SCC Online SC 3375), where prolonged consensual engagement negated rape allegations.
Implications
- Reinforcement of Consent Doctrine: The judgment strengthens the judiciary’s reluctance to equate broken promises of marriage with rape unless clear deceit is proven. It prioritizes the complainant’s agency, potentially deterring frivolous claims but raising questions about protecting vulnerable individuals in unequal power dynamics.
- Judicial Discretion at Discharge: By overturning the High Court, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of reasoned orders at the discharge stage, ensuring that only cases with sufficient prima facie evidence proceed to trial.
- Societal Context: The ruling critiques the weaponization of rape laws in personal disputes, a recurring theme in Indian jurisprudence. However, it risks underplaying the appellant’s position of authority, which the prosecution argued created an imbalance of trust.
Conclusion
Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal is a pivotal judgment that balances individual autonomy with the need to prevent abuse of legal processes. By setting aside the High Court’s order and discharging the appellant, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that consent, informed by full knowledge of circumstances, cannot retrospectively be deemed vitiated absent compelling evidence of deceit or coercion. While the decision protects against misuse of rape laws, it also highlights the challenge of addressing power imbalances in relationships—a tension that future cases must resolve. As India’s legal framework evolves, this judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in sifting fact from narrative, ensuring justice for both the accused and the complainant.
References
- Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024), Supreme Court of India, April 7, 2025.
- Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608.
- Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46.
- Dr. Dhruvaram Muralidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191.
- Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC Online SC 3375.
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC Online SC 379.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 375, 376, 415, 417, 506).
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 227, 402, 482).