Supreme Court of India Clarifies the Law on Consent and False Promises of Marriage: A Detailed Legal Analysis of Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (2025)

Introduction

In the ever-evolving landscape of criminal jurisprudence, the interpretation of "consent" under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) continues to spark vital legal debates. The Supreme Court's decision in Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4261 of 2024) adds substantial depth to this discourse. This judgment revolves around a retired judicial officer, Biswajyoti Chatterjee, and his alleged involvement in a physical relationship under a purported false promise of marriage.

The key elements of the case—its factual matrix, legal contentions, judicial reasoning, and broader implications—are presented in a structured, educational manner.

Background of the Case

The Factual Matrix

The appellant, Biswajyoti Chatterjee, is a retired Additional District Judge. He was accused by the complainant (a divorced woman) of engaging in a sexual relationship with her based on a false promise to marry. According to the complainant, Chatterjee assured her of marriage and agreed to support her child from a prior marriage. Their relationship, which continued for several years, was marked by repeated sexual encounters. Upon the finalization of her divorce, Chatterjee allegedly began distancing himself and ultimately refused to marry her.

Legal Charges Framed

Based on the complainant's allegations, an FIR was registered under the following sections:

• Section 376(2)(f) IPC – Rape by a person in a position of trust or authority
• Section 417 IPC – Cheating
• Section 506 IPC – Criminal intimidation

The Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint, and the case proceeded. Chatterjee sought discharge from the trial court, which was dismissed. The Calcutta High Court, in its revisionary jurisdiction, upheld the trial court’s decision, prompting Chatterjee to approach the Supreme Court of India via a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

Legal Issues Raised

The Supreme Court was called upon to address critical questions:

1. Does a consensual relationship become rape if it is based on a broken promise to marry?
2. What constitutes a false promise within the meaning of Section 375 IPC?
3. Can the continuation of a consensual relationship after the alleged promise weaken the prosecution's case?
4. Does the accused’s status as a former judge aggravate the offense under Section 376(2)(f)?

Legal Framework and Precedents

Section 375 IPC and the Concept of Consent

Section 375 of IPC defines rape and includes within its situations where consent is obtained through "misconception of fact." Explanation 2 to Section 375 clarifies that a consent given under a misconception of fact is not valid. The Supreme Court has, in previous rulings, addressed whether a promise to marry, later retracted, could fall within this scope.

Judicial Precedents Cited

The following landmark judgments guided the Court’s interpretation:

1. Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46

Held that if a promise to marry is not false at the time it was made, the resulting consensual act does not amount to rape.

2. Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675

Distinguished between cases where the promise was genuine but later not fulfilled and cases where the promise was a mere tool to exploit.

3. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608

Emphasized the requirement of proving that the promise was false at inception and intended to deceive.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma provided a detailed and nuanced interpretation of the facts and legal principles involved.

1. Nature of Consent

The Court reiterated that consent must be free, voluntary, and informed. It emphasized that when such consent is vitiated by a promise that is false at the time it was made, it could amount to rape.

However, in the present case, it was observed that the relationship was long-standing and continued over time. There was no evidence that the promise of marriage was false from the beginning. On the contrary, the conduct of the complainant suggested continued voluntary association with the appellant.

2. The Question of False Promise

The Court emphasized that merely not fulfilling a promise later does not automatically make it a false promise. It noted:

"The broken promise, without anything more, cannot be equated with a false promise made with a deliberate intent to deceive."

This distinction proved crucial in determining the criminality of Chatterjee’s actions.

3. Abuse of Legal Provisions

The bench warned against the growing tendency of using criminal provisions such as Section 376 IPC as a “weapon for vengeance” when intimate relationships break down. It noted:

“The law is meant to protect, not to be used as a tool of personal vendetta when relationships sour.”

4. Quashing of Proceedings

Exercising its inherent powers under Article 136 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and the criminal proceedings. It held that the charges lacked the legal and factual foundation required to constitute the alleged offences.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment offers multiple layers of relevance:

A. For Criminal Law Jurisprudence

• Clarifies the threshold for vitiated consent under Section 375 IPC
• Reinforces the necessity of mens rea (intention to deceive) at the time of making a marriage promise

B. For Gender Justice

• Balances the rights of women to protection from exploitation with the protection of men from malicious prosecution in consensual relationships

C. For Legal Practice

• Acts as precedent for future bail, discharge, and quashing applications in similar cases

Broader Legal and Social Implications

The judgment implicitly critiques the misuse of legal provisions and calls for judicial sensitivity in evaluating cases involving intimate relationships. It encourages law enforcement agencies and the judiciary to examine the intent and circumstances rather than treating every unfulfilled promise as inherently criminal.

Conclusion

The Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal case is a landmark decision that strikes a fine balance between preventing exploitation and ensuring that criminal law is not misused for personal vendetta. The Supreme Court’s detailed legal analysis reaffirms that consent, to be valid, must be both informed and free from deceit—but not every failed relationship translates into a criminal offence.

This case adds a critical layer of understanding to Indian rape jurisprudence, particularly in the context of evolving social norms and intimate relationships. Legal practitioners, scholars, and students must closely examine this ruling, as it will undoubtedly shape future interpretations of "consent" and "false promises" under Indian criminal law.

FAQs

1. What was the key legal question in the Chatterjee case?

Whether a consensual sexual relationship based on an unfulfilled promise of marriage amounts to rape under Section 376 IPC.

2. What did the Supreme Court decide?

It quashed the FIR, holding that the promise to marry was not made with the intent to deceive and that the relationship was consensual.

3. What legal principles did the Court rely upon?

It relied on Uday v. State of Karnataka, Pramod Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, and Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana.

4. Does this ruling encourage misuse of consent laws?

No. Instead, it discourages misuse of rape laws in failed relationships while still protecting genuine victims.

5. Why is this case important for law students?

It provides a clear example of how courts interpret "consent" and "false promise" within criminal law, offering valuable precedent for academic and professional use.