Calcutta High Court quashes outraging modesty case filed against senior BJP leader by female party worker

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday quashed proceedings initiated against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Joint General Secretary Shiv Prakash in relation to charges of rape and outraging modesty levelled by a woman party worker. [Shib Prakash @ Shiv Prakash Singh v. State of West Bengal]..Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) noted that the allegations in the first information report (FIR) lodged by the party worker were mostly against one Amalendu Chattopadhyay, who was the then State General Secretary (Organisation) of the party, and not against Prakash.There was no evidence to support the allegations against the petitioner, the Court further noted."The entire case revolves around the relationship between Amalendu Chattopadhyay and the complainant and the position the petitioner holds in the party organization. The allegation of the complainant regarding criminal conspiracy by the petitioner and the other accused persons also has no evidence in support on record," the order stated. .As per the FIR registered in 2018, the complainant joined BJP in 2013. She claimed that Amalendu Chattopadhyay often helped her fight the odds within the party.She claimed that during one of Prakash's visits to West Bengal, he had invited himself to her house for dinner and on reaching there, made sexual advances. Chattopadhyay helped her get out of the situation..Further, it was alleged that once, Prakash called her to a hotel room through a senior leader. When she reached the room, she found that he was present there along with Bidyut Mukherjee. She alleged that both of them attempted to rape her, but she was again saved by Chattopadhyay. Amid all this, Chattopadhyay who is the prime accused in this case, allegedly expressed his love for her and subsequently the duo became physically intimate. The relationship developed over time and he even put vermilion (sindoor) on her forehead and told her that he would marry her later. He then allegedly established sexual relations with her and even forced her to terminate three pregnancies.Chattopadhyay was subsequently removed from the party after the relationship came to be known to the party leaders..The woman alleged that Chattopadhyay used her to return to state politics, but later refused to marry her, after which an FIR was registered. Prakash was also roped in as an accused in this case, though the allegations were against Chattopadhyay.The first chargesheet was against Chattopadhyay for the offence of rape. A supplementary chargesheet came to be filed against Prakash for the offence of outraging modesty of a woman under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). .Prakash, on his part, denied the allegations and claimed that the case is lodged out of a political vendetta and to blackmail him..The Court stated that the ultimate test to ascertain whether the modesty of a woman has been outraged is whether the act is perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman."In the present case there is absolutely no such action on the part of the petitioner which could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. Thus considering all these facts and the materials on record, it is evident that the ingredients required to constitute the offence alleged against the petitioner is prima facie not present," the Court held. There is no material or evidence on record except the statements of the complainant either made by her or as allegedly told to her by the principal accused Amalendu Chattopadhyay, the Court further noted."Even those statements do not constitute the ingredients required to constitute the offence against the petitioner as put down in the charge sheet," the Court said..Therefore, proceedings against Singh were quashed. .Senior Advocate Sidhartha Luthra along with Advocates Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Vikash Singh, RN Banerjee, Ayush Koushik and Piyush Kumar appeared for the petitioner. Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee along withAadvocates S Maji and Subhayu Das represented for the complainant woman. Advocates Swapan Banerjee and Purnima Ghosh represented the State. .[Read Judgment]