Case Title: Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar
Date of Judgment: July 29, 2025
The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that a consensual physical relationship arising out of a promise to marry cannot be treated as rape. Setting aside the Calcutta High Court’s refusal to quash proceedings against the accused, the Court held that continuation of the criminal case would amount to an abuse of process.
Background
The prosecutrix, who was a minor at the time of the alleged incident, lodged an FIR against the appellant and his family members under Sections 417, 376, 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. She alleged that the appellant had promised marriage and engaged in a relationship with her when she was 15 years old. The complaint was registered more than three years after the alleged occurrence, by which time the prosecutrix had attained majority.
While the Calcutta High Court quashed the proceedings against the appellant’s parents and uncle, it refused to extend the same relief to him. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Observations of the Court
The bench noted that there was no forensic or supporting evidence to substantiate the allegation of rape said to have taken place when the complainant was a minor. The Court also took into account the inordinate delay of more than three years in filing the FIR, which raised serious doubts about the veracity of the allegations.
Relying on earlier precedents including Prithivirajan v. State (2025), Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020), the Court emphasized that a consensual relationship entered into on a promise of marriage does not by itself constitute rape.
Decision
Holding that the criminal proceedings were a misuse of the legal process, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and all proceedings against the appellant. The Court concluded that the High Court should have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the appellant’s case as well, just as it had done for the other accused.
