The Supreme Court of India, which is comprised of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, issued a landmark judgment on April 7, 2025, in which it established the legal distinction between consensual partnerships and rape in situations where sexual intercourse takes place based on an alleged promise of marriage.
During the course of the lawsuit known as Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, a former judicial officer was accused of sexually exploiting a lady under the guise of marrying her. In addition to emphasizing the significance of mature consent and distinguishing it from a misunderstanding of the facts, the court dismissed the accusations and annulled the proceedings.
This judgment reaffirms the notion that the criminal justice system should not be abused in order to punish unsuccessful relationships, particularly in situations where both parties are mature adults who voluntarily participate in intimate relationships.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
An Overview of the Case’s Recent History
Biswajyoti Chatterjee, a retired judicial official, was accused of having sexual intercourse with a lady (Respondent No. 2) under the guise of marriage. The woman made this accusation. When the complainant was in the midst of legal proceedings linked to her divorce in 2014, the two became acquainted with one another.
During the course of the divorce proceedings, the appellant allegedly gave her the assurance that he would marry her and take care of both her and her kid. On the basis of these assurances, she started a sexual relationship with him.
It is said in the complaint that the appellant made arrangements for her child to have a place to live and to attend school, that she made regular deposits of money into her account, and that she took her to his residence in Kolkata.
However, after the divorce of the complainant was finalized, the appellant allegedly started to avoid her and gradually severed all communication with her throughout the situation. As a consequence of this, a First Information Report (FIR) was submitted in 2015 under the Indian Penal Code’s Sections 376 (rape), 417 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation).
The appellant was subjected to a protracted inquiry that ultimately resulted in the filing of a charge sheet, despite the fact that anticipatory bail had been granted. In both the Sessions Court and the Calcutta High Court, his attempts to obtain discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code were, unfortunately, unsuccessful. At long last, the subject was brought before the Supreme Court.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )
Concerns of a Legal Nature Given Consideration by the Supreme Court
Both the question of whether the relationship between the complainant and the appellant constituted rape due to a false promise of marriage and the question of whether the trial court had made a mistake in ruling that the appellant should not be discharged at the preliminary stage were the primary issues that were brought before the court.
In the context of mature, consensual partnerships, the Court investigated the boundaries of criminal culpability under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, the Court determined whether or not the elements of cheating and intimidation were properly satisfied.
An Examination of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code: Misconception of Fact and Consent
Rape, which includes sexual intercourse without the woman’s free and informed permission, is punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. There are other penalties for sexual assault.
Permission that is granted on the basis of a “misconception of fact” is not deemed to be legal, as stated in Section 375. It is possible for such a misunderstanding to be caused by a promise of marriage that is not true and is not intended to be fulfilled at the time it is made.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court recognized a distinction between a promise that was made with the intention of misleading someone and a simple breach of promise that occurred as a result of later events.
While the former may be subject to liability under Section 376, the latter does not have this potential. In its decision, the Court highlighted that a broken promise is not sufficient evidence to establish criminal intent without further evidence.
Regarding this particular case, the court did not discover any evidence that would indicate that the appellant had never planned to marry the complainant from the very beginning. On the contrary, he had provided her with financial and emotional support, and he had even invited her to join his social circle. Instead of being a cunning ploy to take advantage of her, these actions indicated more toward a real connection that eventually ended between the two of them.
Consent and the Opportunity to Make a Decision
The capacity of the complainant to give permission was another area of attention for the court. She was a woman of 36 years old who had a kid from a previous relationship. She was fully aware of the appellant’s marital status, as he had indicated that he was separated and not divorced.
Additionally, she had been receiving support from him in the areas of finances and logistics. On the other hand, this suggests that the decision to get into a relationship was made consciously, rationally, and voluntarily.
In past cases, such as Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court stated that consent must involve active reasoning and understanding. The Supreme Court referred to these earlier rulings.
Consent is not automatically invalidated by a promise of marriage unless it is demonstrated that the promise was made in a dishonest and fraudulent manner from the very beginning.
As a result, the court came to the conclusion that the complaint had acted of their own free choice and had not been intimidated or deceived in any way.
Intimidation related to criminal activity and cheating are not sufficient grounds.
As far as the allegations made under Sections 417 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the court did not discover any meaningful evidence of dishonesty or intimidation.
Dishonest encouragement is required in order to constitute cheating in accordance with Section 417. However, in this particular instance, the complainant was well aware of the appellant’s history and made the decision to be in a relationship on their own volition.
Regarding the matter of criminal intimidation, the court determined that hazy assertions of threats communicated through a security officer were insufficient. It was not possible to find any credible evidence of any actual threat or compulsion.
In addition to this, the court found contradictions in the assertions that the complainant had made themselves. She asserted that she was referred to the appellant by a lawyer on the advocate’s demand; nevertheless, the charge sheet proved that she had known the attorney before to the incident. As a result, the credibility of the claims seemed to be called into question.
The Function of Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Process of Discharge
In the event that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with the case, a judge has the authority to release an accused person under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A complete trial is not needed at this level unless there is a prima facie case, according to the Supreme Court, which reprimanded the High Court for failing to come to the realization that this is the case.
It was emphasized once more by the Supreme Court that judges should refrain from transforming pre-trial hearings into mini-trials. However, if the evidence that is currently available does not provide support for the fundamental components of the alleged offenses, then it would be unjustified to continue the prosecution.
An Admonition to Avoid Misusing the Legal System
The decision issued a categorical warning against turning failed love relationships into cases that involve criminal charges. It was accepted that although the law should protect women from being exploited, it should not be allowed to be abused in such a way that it criminalizes consensual relationships or is used to settle personal scores.
A criminal prosecution is not warranted for every single instance of a love relationship breaking down. It is necessary for the courts to differentiate between actual dishonesty and relationships between two parties that did not work out.
Concluding Decision and Its Effects
In addition to dismissing the criminal charges, the Supreme Court granted the appeal, which resulted in the High Court’s order being overturned. It was noticed that permitting the case to continue would result in an excessive amount of hardship for both parties, who had already moved on with their lives following the conclusion of the lawsuit.
A precedent has been established for the cautious inspection of the court system in situations involving sexual encounters and claimed false pledges of marriage, as a result of this verdict. In the context of the application of criminal law, it highlights the significance of adult consent and fairness.
