LexBISWAJYOTI CHATTERJEE versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 425 : 2025 INSC 458 Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1842 of 2025) 07 April 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the allegations against the appellant, as they stand, constitute an offence, u/ss.376(2)(f), 417 and 506 IPC; and whether the case of the appellant is fit for discharge u/s.227 CrPC, 1973. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376(2)(f), 417 and 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – The case of respondent no.2/complainant was that during the pendency of the litigation arising out of a marital discord with her ex-husband, she came in contact with the appellant – Appellant, who was also separated from his wife, had assured the complainant that he will marry her, once she gets divorced – However, when the divorce of the complainant was finalized, appellant avoided her – FIR was registered – Appellant sought discharge by filing application u/s.227 CrPC – The said application was dismissed by the District and Session Judge – Challenge to the said order was dismissed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: It is the own case of the complainant/respondent No.2 that during the relevant time, the appellant had duly informed her that he was separated from his wife – The complainant who was well aware of the personal as well as the professional background of the appellant, who had been receiving financial help from the appellant for herself and her son, must have carefully weighed her decision before entering into a relationship with the appellant – 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 – It is upon having an active understanding of the * Author 426 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports circumstances, actions and the consequences of the acts, that the complainant made a reasoned choice to sustain a relationship with the appellant – In considered view of this Court, even if the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet are taken at their face value, it is improbable that the complainant had engaged in a physical relationship with the appellant, only on account of an assurance of marriage – There are also inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecutrix insofar as it is deposed by her in the statement u/s.164 CrPC – Considering overall factual matrix of the case, it is clear that the physical relationship between the complainant and the appellant was consensual, cannot be said to be without her consent or against her will – It would be in the interest of justice if the proceedings are terminated at this stage itself.[Paras 14, 15, 16, 19, 22] Case Law Cited Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [2019] 11 SCR 423 : [2019] 9 SCC 608; Uday v. State of Karnataka [2003] 2 SCR 231 : (2003) 4 SCC 46 – relied on. Dr. Dhruvaram Muralidha Sonar v. State of Maharashtra [2018] 13 SCR 920 : [2019] 18 SCC 191; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh [2023] 2 SCR 819 : [2023] SCC Online SC 379; Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi [2013] 1 SCR 504 : 2024 SCC Online SC 3375 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Marital discord; Pending litigation; Divorce; Consent; Will; Subsisting marriage; Circumstances; Actions; Consequences of the acts; Physical relationship; Assurance of marriage; Consensual relationship. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1842 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2024 of the High Court at Calcutta in CRR No. 639 of 2024 [2025] 5 S.C.R. 427 Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Anr. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Pijush K. Roy, Sr. Adv., Ms. Kakali Roy, Rajan K. Chourasia, Ms. Satyama Dubey, Sharath Nambiar, Vinayak Sharma. Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Astha Sharma, Samrat Goswami, Sunando Raha, Sk Sayan Uddin, Kunal Malik, Manish Awasthi. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Satish Chandra Sharma, J. Leave granted. 2. The Appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the Order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CRR No. 639/2024 filed under Section 402 r/w 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (“CrPC”), whereby the Hon’ble High Court refused to discharge the Appellant in FIR No. 13/2015 dt. 14.12.2015 registered with Mahila Po
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.