Calcutta High Court refuses to quash case against Magistrate accused of raping litigant-woman on pretext of marriage

The Calcutta High Court on Monday refused to quash a case against a judicial officer accused of raping a litigant on the promise of marriage [Biswajyoti Chatterjee vs State of West Bengal]..The divorce case of the survivor-woman was being heard by the accused Biswajyoti Chatterjee when he was serving as an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.He had then allegedly established a sexual relationship with the woman on promise to marry her after her divorce, but later went back on the promise. "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," single-judge Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) observed..The bench was hearing a plea filed by the judicial officer seeking quashing of the rape case against him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution claimed that the petitioner was seized of the complainant-woman's divorce proceedings. He promised to marry her after her divorce and maintained sexual relations with her for over a year, it was submitted.It was also contended that the petitioner even rented a room for the woman and her son and even got her son admitted to a school. The petitioner, however, refused to marry the woman after she got divorced..The bench noted that the investigation in this case was extensive and several important and incriminating evidence was collected by the investigating officer, including text messages, statements recorded under section 161 CrPC, details of places where the complainant and the petitioner had physical relationship etc."Whether the petitioner conducted himself in bad faith or with intention to deceive the complainant is to be adjudicated at the time of trial by way of adducing evidence. At this stage the material in the case diary is sufficient making out a clear case of cognizable offence against the petitioner," the bench noted..In the instant case, the judge said, charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate concerned, the committal proceedings have not yet taken place, and some of the offences attracted in this case are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court."In the present case, 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," the bench opined.The bench, therefore, dismissed the petition..Advocates AK Dutta, B Banerjee and K Banerjee appeared for the Petitioner.Advocates Kaushik Gupta and M Gangopadhyay appeared for the Complainant.Advocates Saibal Bapuli and A Bhattacharrya represented the State..[Read Order]