- Case
- BISWAJYOTI CHATTERJEE v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Supreme Court of India, 07-04-2025)
- Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): The judgment discusses Section 402 CrPC r/w Section 482 CrPC, under which the High Court of Calcutta refused to discharge the Appellant. Section 164 CrPC is mentioned in relation to the Complainant's statement, highlighting inconsistencies found within it. Section 227 CrPC is discussed as the Appellant sought discharge under this section, which was dismissed by the District & Sessions Judge. The judgment also references the dismissal of CRR No. 639/2024 filed in revision before the High Court.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): The judgment refers to Sections 376/417/506 IPC under which the FIR was registered. It specifically discusses Section 376(2)(f) IPC, arguing whether a false promise to marry constitutes an offence when the complainant knew the appellant was married. Section 417 IPC is discussed concerning whether the ingredients of dishonest and fraudulent inducement are present. Section 506 IPC is mentioned regarding whether the allegations constitute criminal intimidation. Section 120B IPC is also mentioned as part of the prima facie case made out against the Appellant. The judgment also discusses Section 415 IPC regarding fraudulent or dishonest inducement.
General Principles of Law: The judgment extensively discusses the concept of "consent" in the context of sexual relationships, particularly whether consent given under a false promise of marriage can be considered valid. It emphasizes the need for "active and reasoned deliberation" in giving consent, citing the case of *Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs State of Maharashtra*. The judgment also touches upon the principle that criminal proceedings should not be initiated when relationships turn sour, especially in consensual relationships where a possibility of marriage existed. It highlights the potential for abuse of the process of law in such cases. The judgment also discusses the concept of "prima facie" case and the stage of discharge, stating that the court is not required to conduct a mini trial at the stage of discharge.
