Calcutta HC Refuses To Quash Case Against Judicial Magistrate Accused Of Raping Litigant On False Promise To Marry Her

Rahul Garg

22 Nov 2022 1:00 PM IST

Share this

Calcutta HC Refuses To Quash Case Against Judicial Magistrate Accused Of Raping Litigant On False Promise To Marry Her

The Calcutta High Court on Monday refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against a judicial officer accused of raping a litigant on a false promise to marry her.The matrimonial dispute of the complainant was pending before the petitioner herein, a member of the WB Judicial Service who held the post of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at the time, when the latter...

The Calcutta High Court on Monday refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against a judicial officer accused of raping a litigant on a false promise to marry her.

The matrimonial dispute of the complainant was pending before the petitioner herein, a member of the WB Judicial Service who held the post of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at the time, when the latter allegedly established sexual relations with the complainant with an assurance to marry her after culmination of her divorce case. Later, the alleged promise was rescinded.

In this context the High Court observed,

"The Criminal proceedings in this is based on trust. The complainant put her trust and belief in the petitioner, who held an important post in the Judiciary. Being in a position of influence (Complainants case was pending before the petitioner), the complainant put her trust in the petitioner and believing such assurance continued in the relationship hoping that it would result in marriage."

The petitioner had challenged the order of CJM Tamluk which took cognizance of the charge sheet filed against him under Sections 376, 417, 506, 166 and 120B of IPC.

The complainant alleged that in 2014, she had lodged a complaint against her husband under Section 498A of the IPC, subsequent to which she filed for divorce. It was during the pendency of the divorce proceedings that she came in contact with the magistrate-accused, who was hearing the divorce proceedings between the woman and her husband.

The complainant's case was that the accused-Magistrate took her mobile number, started talking to her and told her that he would marry her after the conclusion of her divorce. He had asked her to wait till her divorce and had assured her about taking responsibility of both the complainant as well as her son from her marriage. She also stated that the accused established physical relations with her on several occasions, used to transfer money in her account and also took her to his house. However, after her divorce was finalized, the petitioner went back on his promise, started avoiding her and threatened to kill her and her son.

The complainant argued before the High Court that she was exploited by the petitioner who misused his influential position. She submitted that there existed sufficient evidence against the petitioner including various SMS messages, which were collected by the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, she argued that the revision petition was liable to be dismissed.

The petitioner-accused-magistrate, on the other hand, argued that the CJM who took cognizance of the matter, failed to apply his mind. He argued that a woman could not claim that she was raped on a false promise of marriage if she continued maintaining physical relations with a man despite the uncertainty of marriage. He also argued that consensual sex with false promise to marry did not amount to rape. Further, his case was that he had never forced the complainant to maintain physical relations with him. Accordingly, he argued that no ingredients of the offences as alleged were being made out, and therefore, the cognizance taken was bad in law.

The single bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) refused to quash the proceedings against the magistrate on grounds that a prima facie case existed against him for the alleged offences. It said whether or not the petitioner conducted himself in bad faith was to be decided only at the stage of trial.

"It is found that the investigation in this case was extensive and several important/incriminating evidence has been collected by the investigating officer, which includes SMS, Messages, statements recorded U/S 161 CrPC, details of places where the complainant and the petitioner had physical relationship...there is substance in the allegations and material exists to prima facie make out the complicity of the applicant/petitioner in a cognizable offence, which is triable by a court of sessions and as such the proceedings in this case should not be quashed and this is a fit case where the inherent powers of the Court should not be exercised," added the Court.

Calcutta HC Refuses To Quash Case Against Judicial Magistrate Accused Of Raping Litigant On False Promise To Marry Her

Rahul Garg

Tags