Rajendra Prasad Saw @ Shaw vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 179 Cal

                 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
                          APPELLATE SIDE

The Hon'ble JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI


                             IA No: CRAN/1/2022
                                      In
                              CRR 3972 of 2022
                        Rajendra Prasad Saw @ Shaw
                                     -Vs-
                       The State of West Bengal & Anr.

      For the Petitioner:         Mr. Rabindra Kumar Jaiswal, Adv.,

      For the State:              Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukerjee, Ld. A.P.P.,
                                  Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Adv.,
                                  Mr. Bitasok Banerjee, Adv.

Heard on: 06 January, 2023.
Judgment on: 06 January, 2023.

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J. : -


1.

The parties have filed a joint petition for compromise and prayed for

quashment of charge-sheet bearing No.65 of 2022 filed in the court of the

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore under Section

417/341/376/323 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with

Haridevpur Police Station Case No.112 dated 30th April 2021.

2. In his application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure it is stated by the petitioner that on or about 21st March, 2018

the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 came in contact through Social

Networking Site. They were in touch regularly through Social Networking

Site as well as over telephone. Subsequently the petitioner and the

opposite party No.2 started to live together in a rented accommodation. At

the end of December 2020, petitioner for the first time came to know that

the opposite party No.2 is a married lady and her marriage was

solemnized in the year 2016. After getting the said information the

petitioner had cut off all connection with the opposite party No.2. However

the opposite party No.2 has lodged a complaint against the petitioner on

the basis of which Police registered a case under Section

417/341/376/323 of the IPC. In the said case, charge-sheet has been

submitted against the petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the

petitioner that both the opposite party No.2 and the petitioner have

attained majority. They had physical relationship on consent of each other

and there was no deception on the part of the accused/petitioner. The

opposite party No.2 made a false complaint against him.

3. During pendency of the instant revision both the petitioner and the

opposite party No.2 has filed a joint petition for compromise stating, inter

alia, that the dispute between the parties has amicably been settled and

on the basis of such settlement the criminal case pending before the

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore may be quashed.

4. The learned P.P submits that the issue as to whether a major lady

was cheated on false promise of marriage and her consent of physical

relationship is obtained on such false promise, is a question on fact to be

determined only at time of trial on evidence. In support of his contention

the learned Public Prosecutor refers to a recent decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Daxaben vs State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2022

SCC OnLine SC 936. It is held in the aforesaid report by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court that a criminal proceeding cannot be nipped in the bud by

exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, only because

there is settlement between the accused and the complainant.

5. Learned Advocate for the complainant/opposite party No.2, on the

other submits that the opposite party does not want to proceed with the

criminal case against the petitioner on the ground that her father is

seriously ill and at any point of time serious consequence may happen to

her father if the case is pending. It is also submitted by the petitioner that

she has got a government job and if a criminal proceeding is pending, she

may be denied of the job.

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner on the other hand refers to a

decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Tino Thankachan vs

State of Kerala reported in 2022 LiveLaw (Kerala) 615. It is held by the

Kerala High Court that if a man retracts his promise to marry a woman,

consensual sex they had would not constitute an offence punishable

under Section 376 of the IPC unless it is established that consent for

such sexual act was obtained by him, by giving false promise of marriage

with no intention of being adhered to and that promise made was false to

his knowledge.

7. In the instant case it is ascertained from the record that opposite

party No.2/complainant was previously married sometimes in the year

2016 however her marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce in the year

2018. The accused came in touch with her in 2018 when there was no

marriage. I am in agreement with learned Public Prosecutor that the issue

was to whether the consent of the lady for such sexual act was obtained

by the petitioner by giving false promise of marriage without any intention

to marry her from the very beginning is a question of fact that only be

adjudicated upon during trial. Lastly, I like to record that the opposite

party being the defacto complainant may not have any problem in getting

her job in a government service because of pendency of the case.

8. In view of the above discussion, I find no ground to entertain the

instant petition for compromise the joint petition for compromise is

therefore rejected. In view of rejection on the petition for compromise, the

revision is also dismissed.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)