The Appellant, a former judicial officer, was accused of sexually exploiting the Complainant under the false pretext of marriage. The Complainant alleged that the Appellant, while holding the post of ACJM, Haldia, promised to marry her and financially supported her and her son, but later avoided her after her divorce was finalized. The FIR was registered under Sections 376(2)(f), 417, and 506 IPC. The Appellant was granted anticipatory bail, and the case was investigated by the CID, West Bengal. The Sessions Court and the Calcutta High Court dismissed the Appellant’s discharge application and revision petition, respectively, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the relationship was consensual, and the Complainant could not claim misconception of fact as she was aware of the Appellant’s marital status. The Court found no evidence of fraudulent inducement or criminal intimidation. The proceedings were quashed, and the impugned orders of the High Court and Sessions Court were set aside.

Major Acts and Sections:

• Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Rape by a person in a position of trust or authority.

• Section 417 IPC – Punishment for cheating.

• Section 506 IPC – Punishment for criminal intimidation.

• Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 – Discharge of the accused if no sufficient ground for proceeding.

• Section 164 CrPC – Recording of confessions and statements.

Issues:

1. Whether the allegations against the Appellant constituted offences under Sections 376(2)(f), 417, and 506 IPC.

2. Whether the Appellant’s case was fit for discharge under Section 227 CrPC.

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellant’s Counsel:

  • The relationship was consensual, and the Complainant was aware of the Appellant’s marital status.

  • The promise of marriage, even if false, did not amount to rape or cheating as the Complainant voluntarily entered the relationship.

  • No evidence of fraudulent inducement or criminal intimidation.

• State’s Counsel:

  • The Appellant abused his position of trust and exploited the Complainant under a false promise of marriage.

  • Witness testimonies and material evidence established a prima facie case.

Ratio:

• A false promise of marriage does not vitiate consent if the complainant was aware of the circumstances and entered the relationship voluntarily.

• The burden of proving lack of consent lies on the prosecution, and mere allegations are insufficient to establish offences under Sections 376(2)(f), 417, and 506 IPC.

• Courts must scrutinize evidence carefully to prevent misuse of criminal proceedings in cases of soured relationships.

Subjects:

Consensual relationship, False promise of marriage, Discharge under Section 227 CrPC, Misconception of fact, Prima facie case.

Note: The judgment emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between consensual relationships and criminal liability, particularly in cases involving allegations of false promises of marriage. The Court’s decision aligns with precedents like Pramod Suryabhan Pawar and Uday v. State of Karnataka, reinforcing the need for active and reasoned deliberation in establishing consent.