1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL) CRR 3449 of 2024 Meherajul Mallick @ Khokon Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. For the Petitioners : Mr. Navnil De, Adv. Ms. Monami Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Debarshi Mukhopadhyay, Adv. For the State : Mr. Amarta Ghosh, Adv. Judgment reserved on : 14.07.2026 Judgment delivered on : 21.07.2026 SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.:- 1. The revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings in connection with Chanditala Police Station case no. 479 of 2022 dated September 21, 2022 under Sections 447/341/354/ 354A/354B/493/376/120B/509 of Indian Penal Code giving rise to G.R. Case No. 1818 of 2022, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly. 2. The petitioner case is that based on a petition of complaint lodged by the victim lady (hereinafter referred to as the 'Complainant) before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore at 2 Hooghly on September 17, 2022, the instant case being Chanditala Police Station Case No. 479 of 2022 dated September 21, 2022 was registered for investigation against the petitioner for commission of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 447/341/354/354A/354B/493/376/120B/509 of the Indian Penal. 3. The allegations levelled in the petition of complaint against the Petitioner are as follows:- “That the petitioner used to come to the matrimonial home of the victim lady on a regular basis and started to gain her trust by offering all types of assistance to her. With the passage of time, they became closer and the petitioner promised the victim lady that he will give her a job in Mumbai and also promised her of marriage suppressing the fact that he is already married and had one son and one daughter. In the absence of the husband of the victim lady, the petitioner compelled her to have sexual relation with him on a regular basis. The petitioner also requested and procured 5 bhoris of gold ornaments on the pretext of upliftment of his business. On not bowing down to the demands of the petitioner of having sexual relation furthermore, the petitioner started threatening her and her family members of dire consequences and to never return the gold ornaments, which the victim lady had given him for the upliftment of his business.” 4. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigating agency submitted Charge Sheet vide Charge Sheet No. 15 of 2023 dated January 31, 2023 against the petitioner for commission of the alleged 3 offences punishable under Sections 341 /448 /354 /354A /354B /376 /493 /120B of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Hence the prayer for quashing of the said proceeding on the ground that admittedly this is a case of consensual relationship between two married persons. 6. It appears from the petition of complaint that the complainant had physical relationship in the lodge near Air Port, Kolkata with the petitioner herein. 7. It is submitted that the petitioner cohabited with her by deceitfully inducing her to believe that she was his lawfully married wife. 8. Admittedly the petitioner was married at the time of the alleged occurrence with two school going children. It appears from the materials in the case diary that at the relevant time the complainant was aged about 35 years and she was also married a woman with two children. It also appears that the petitioner herein used to visit the complainant’s matrimonial home as a family friend. As such the question of deceitfully inducing her to believe that she was his lawfully married wife is not believable. 9. It appears that during this time the parties became close and started the relationship which prima facie appears to be consensual. 10. The Supreme Court in Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3375, decided on November 20, 2024, held:- “17. In the present case, the issue that had to be addressed by the High Court was whether, assuming 4 all the allegations in the FIR are correct as they stand, an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC were made out. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the appellant and the complainant first came in contact in the year 2017 and established a relationship thereafter. The parties met multiple times at various places during the years 2017 and 2019, including at parks and their respective houses. Although the complainant stated that the appellant had a forceful sexual relationship with her, neither did she stop meeting the appellant thereafter, nor did she file a criminal complaint during the said period. 18. It is inconceivable that the complainant would continue to meet the appellant or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with him in the absence of voluntary consent on her part. Moreover, it would have been improbable for the appellant to ascertain the complainant's residential address, as mentioned in the FIR unless such information had been voluntarily provided by the complainant herself. It is also revealed that, at one point, both parties had an intention to marry each other, though this plan ultimately did not materialize. The appellant and the complainant were in a consensual relationship. They are both educated adults. The complainant, after filing the FIR against the appellant, got married in the year 2020 to some other person. Similarly, the appellant was also married in the year 2019. Possibly the marriage of the appellant in the year 2019 has led the complainant to file the FIR against him as they were in a consensual relationship till then. 19. In our view, taking the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet as they stand, the crucial ingredients of the offence under Section 376 (2)(n) IPC are absent. A review of the FIR and the complainant's statement under Section 164 CrPC discloses no indication that any promise of marriage was extended at the outset of their relationship in 2017. Therefore, even if the prosecution's case is accepted at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the complainant engaged in a sexual relationship with the appellant solely on account of any assurance of marriage from the appellant. The relationship between the parties was cordial and also consensual in nature. A mere breakup of a relationship between a 5 consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship. Further, both parties are now married to someone else and have moved on in their respective lives. Thus, in our view, the continuation of the prosecution in the present case would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution. 22. Recently this Court in XXXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 3 SCC 496 held that when the relationship between the parties was purely consensual and when the complainant was aware of the consequences of her actions, the ingredients of the offence of rape were not made out. Similarly, in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 arising out of identical facts, this Court has enumerated the following: “18. To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the “consent” of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act.”” 11. Thus as the relationship between the parties prima facie appears to be consensual, the ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged are prima facie not made out against the accused/ petitioner herein. 12. Relying upon paragraph 17, 18, 19 and 22 of the Judgment in Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Supra), the present proceeding is liable to be quashed in respect of petitioner herein. 6 13. Criminal Revision being CRR 3449 of 2024 is allowed. 14. The proceedings in connection with Chanditala Police Station case no. 479 of 2022 dated September 21, 2022 under Sections 447/341/354/ 354A/354B/493/376/120B/509 of Indian Penal Code giving rise to G.R. Case No. 1818 of 2022, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner herein namely Meherajul Mallick @ Khokon. 15. All connected application, if any, stands disposed of. 16. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 17. Let a copy of the Judgment be sent to the learned trial Court for compliance. 18. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)