In Kunal Chatterjee v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., SC quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant charged u/s 417 (cheating), 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation), 34 IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child), holding that a consensual relationship based on a promise to marry does not amount to rape.

The case arose from an FIR filed in 2022 by a woman who, at the time of lodging the complaint, was a major but claimed that she was a minor (aged 15) when she entered into a consensual sexual relationship with the appellant on the promise of marriage.

She alleged that after attaining majority, the appellant refused to marry her and that she was subsequently humiliated by his family, which prompted her to lodge the FIR.

An FIR was lodged against Kunal Chatterjee, his father, mother, and uncle. While the Calcutta HC quashed the proceedings against the other family members u/s 482 CrPC, it allowed the prosecution to continue against the appellant. Aggrieved by this, he approached the Supreme Court.

SC noted that the FIR had been lodged more than 3 years after the alleged incident. Moreover, there was no forensic or medical evidence to support the claim of rape during the prosecutrix’s minority.

Setting aside the High Court’s decision, SC observed that while consensual sex with a minor is technically an offence under POCSO, courts may quash such cases if there is no supporting medical or forensic evidence.

Court also relied on Prithivirajan v. State, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand and clarified that a consensual relationship based on a promise to marry does not amount to rape unless it is shown that the promise was false from the very outset.

Therefore, SC held that “Under the present facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the evidence with the prosecution, particularly the long delay in lodging the FIR itself suggest that the present criminal proceedings lodged against the appellant are nothing but an abuse of the process of law.”

Accordingly, SC allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and all proceedings against Kunal Chatterjee. It held that the High Court erred in not extending the same relief to him as it had to the co-accused, and that the case lacked any evidentiary basis to proceed.