28.09.2026 Serial no.53 Aloke Ct. No. 30 CRR 4262 of 2024 Dr. Sunil Shaw vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharaya, ld. Sr.Adv. Mr. Subrata Bhattacahrya Mr. Anirban Dutta Mr. Ayan Mondal Mr. Sandeep Prasad Shaw Mr. Rajeev Singh Mr. Aman Kr. Singh Mr. Subhadip Pan Mr.Bishal Ghosh … for the petitioner Ms. Samira Grewal Mr. Deep Kr. Khetawat Ms. Ananya Chakraborty … for the State 1. The present revisional application has been preferred seeking quashing of Sessions Case No. 5(8) of 2024 arising out of Bansdroni Police Station Case No. 292 of 2023 dated 21.08.2023 corresponding to ACGR No. 4283 of 2023 under Sections 417/376(2)(f)(k)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegation of the opposite party no.2 is that the petitioner had been maintaining physical relations with her since the year 2019 on the promise of marriage and subsequently refused to marry her, leading to the institution of the present FIR. 3. The petitioner states that the materials on record, however, unmistakably demonstrate that the criminal prosecution was initiated only after serious disputes arose between the petitioner and a relative of the opposite 2 party no.2 in relation to a house renovation project and after the petitioner initiated legal proceedings against such relative. 4. State has placed the case diary. 5. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties, and perusal of the written complaint, it appears that the allegations by the opposite party no. 2/de facto complainant against the petitioner is to the effect that between December, 2019 and June 2023, the petitioner induced the Opposite Party No. 2 with false assurance of marrying her and thereby became a person in a position of trust, authority, control and dominance and thereafter enjoyed repeated physical intercourse and thus committed rape. 6. It is stated that after a lapse of three years, the said complaint has been lodged against the said petitioner. 7. It is also stated that there is evidence that the said Opposite Party No. 2 on several occasions invited the petitioner to come her residence but the said petitioner totally ignored and denied the said invitations as made by the said de facto complainant which is evident in the WhatsApp chats as sent by the said de facto Complainant/Opposite Party herein. 8. The petitioner has relied upon the following judgments : (i) Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani vs. The State of Gujarat & Anr. in Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11526 of 2026. 3 (ii) Tanmay Majumder vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 3893; 9. 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 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 4 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 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 5 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.”” 10. From the said materials, in the case diary, this Court finds that the de facto complainant was aware that the petitioner was not interested in marriage but still continued the relationship being a major, aged about ….31 years at the time of the incident. 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. Thus relying upon the judgment in Prashant v. 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 4262 of 2024 is thus allowed. 14. The proceedings in Sessions Case No. 5(8) of 2024 arising out of Bansdroni Police Station Case No. 292 of 2023 dated 21.08.2023 corresponding to ACGR No. 4283 of 2023 under Sections 417/376(2)(f)(k)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 16th Court, South 24 Parganas at Alipore, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner namely Dr. Sunil Shaw. 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.)