CRR No. 3501 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

C.R.R. No. 3501 of 2022

With

CRAN 3 of 2023 & CRAN 4 of 2023

Md. Rafikul Islam & Ors.

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Another

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Pratip Mukherjee, Adv.

Mr. Sk. Md. Ismail, Adv.

Mr. Sk. Md. Jayed, Adv.

For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Adv.

Mr. Abhijit Singh, Adv.

Ms. Sagnika Banerjee, Adv.

Ms. Sarmistha Basak, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. P.P.

Mr. Anamitra Banerjee, Adv.

Heard on : 01.09.2026

Judgment on : 15.10.2026

Uploaded on : 15.10.2026

2

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.:

1. The petitioners/accused persons preferred the instant application

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short,

‘Cr.P.C.’) praying for quashing of the proceedings being Nimta P.S.

Case No. 885/2021 dated 27.11.2021 under Sections

419/420/498A/323/313/416/120B/506/34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore including the order dated

25.11.2021 passed in M.P. Case No. 2386/2021.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant application are that the

opposite party no. 2/de facto complainant, filed an application under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Barrackpore, being Case No. 2386 of 2021. She alleged

that accused no. 1/petitioner no. 1 herein, a Police Constable

attached to Labpur Police Station, along with accused nos. 2 to 11,

who are his family members, and accused no. 12, his associate,

conjointly committed offences against her.

3. Allegedly around the end of 2016, she became acquainted with

petitioner no. 1, Md. Rafikul Islam, who falsely introduced himself as

“Rajib Sarkar” and in disguise of an issue related to purchase of a

certain item from the shop where she was an employee, obtained her

phone number and thereafter pursued her constantly. He

3

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

represented himself as a Hindu and a bachelor, and told her that he

was a police constable posted at Belguma Police Line, Purulia, and

later that he had been transferred to Hatkalua camp attached to

Labpur Police Station. Though initially unwilling, he convinced her

with his persistence, flowery words and promises, and subsequent

threats of suicide, and she eventually fell in love with him. He

proposed marriage and promised a happy married life, and she

agreed to his proposal.

4. The complainant alleges that, during the courtship, they had been

physically intimate with each other on various occasions and at

various places on the promise of marriage, while continuing to

represent himself as a Hindu bachelor. He used to visit her residence

within the jurisdiction of Nimta P.S., where the said acts had taken

place. Unaware of his true identity, she agreed to marry him. In or

about May 2021, he married her in a temple at Digha, according to

Hindu rites and applied vermilion on her forehead to make her

believe that she had become his wife. Immediately after the ceremony,

he took her to Hotel Cozy Inn, Digha. They continued to share

physical relations after marriage. Eventually, they moved to a rented

accommodation at Bardhaman to live as a married couple, as

Petitioner no. 1 stated that it was close to his workplace. Despite her

4

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

repeated requests, he did not take her to his home or introduce her to

his family.

5. One day she accepted a call on his phone from a woman who claimed

to be his wife. On being confronted, he accepted the same, and she

then learnt that his real name is Md. Rafikul Islam, that he is a

Muslim by religion, and that he was already married and that, from

the earlier wedlock, he has two daughters. When she asked him why

he had done this, he grinned and gave no answer, from which she

realised that the deception was intentional and that she had been

cheated and used for his sexual gratification. Deeply distressed, she

expressed her intention to meet his actual family and to return to her

own family. He became infuriated, began assaulting her regularly

with fists, blows and kicks, and forcibly confined her at the

Bardhaman residence. After his identity came to light, his attitude

changed, and he tortured her regularly to silence her. During that

period, he also had sexual intercourse with her against her will

despite her resistance. She continued to bear such torture on a

regular basis.

6. In the meantime, she allegedly became pregnant, and kept insisting

that he introduce her to his family and allow her to return to her

home at Dum Dum. Upon learning of such pregnancy, he agreed to

take her to Murshidabad. They reached his residence on 09.07.2021,

5

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

where the other accused persons were present. When he introduced

her and disclosed her pregnancy, accused nos. 2 to 11, together with

accused no. 1, without provocation, assaulted her with fists, blows,

kicks and a lathi, and even tried to strangle her with a saree. She

sustained multiple injuries and bled profusely. She was rescued by

some passers-by and taken to Khargram Hospital, and was thereafter

admitted to NRS Hospital, where she learnt that she had allegedly

miscarried as a consequence of the attack.

7. After recovering, when she went to lodge a complaint, she was kept

waiting for long hours at Labpur P.S., and her complaint was refused

because accused no. 1 was allegedly attached to that station. Upon

becoming aware of her efforts, accused no. 1 threatened her with dire

consequences. She thereafter lodged a written complaint dated

22.11.2021 with the Officer-in-Charge, Nimta P.S., narrating the

entire incident and requesting immediate action; however, no action

was taken against him and the other accused persons.

8. Having no alternative, she moved the application under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Barrackpore, who took cognizance and forwarded the complaint to

the O.C., Nimta P.S., for investigation. This resulted in the

registration of Nimta P.S. Case No. 885/2021 dated 27.11.2021

under Sections 419/420/498A/323/313/416/120B/506/34 of the

6

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the initiation

of the said proceeding, the petitioners have filed this revisional

application seeking the reliefs aforesaid. Hence, this application.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

9. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhattacharya, appearing for the

petitioners, submitted that the entire story of the de facto

complainant is concocted, false and fabricated. The de facto

complainant, being a gold digger, had initiated a friendly relationship

with the petitioner no. 1 herein and, with the advent of time, knowing

fully well that the petitioner no. 1 is a government servant and police

personnel, grew closeness with him.

10. It is the specific case of the petitioners herein that the petitioner no. 1

was never aware of the fact that the de facto complainant herein was

a married woman and is also the mother of a male child. Such fact

was always concealed by her and only came to light when the

petitioner no. 1 exercised due diligence after developing a suspicion

regarding her whereabouts and behaviour. However, upon being

confronted with such facts, the relationship between the petitioner

no. 1 and the de facto complainant soured. Thereafter, the said

complainant started to blackmail the petitioner no. 1 and extort

money. As a consequence of failing to pay her, she threatened to

lodge a false criminal case against the petitioner no. 1 and his family

7

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

members. Initially, the petitioner, considering his loss of reputation

and the well-being of his aged family members, had succumbed to

the pressure of the complainant and gave her money. However, when

the petitioner ran out of cash and refused to pay any further, the de

facto complainant lodged a false complaint arraigning the petitioner

no. 1, along with his family.

11. It was further submitted that the de facto complainant herein has

completely deceived petitioner no. 1, who had all along represented

herself as an unmarried woman and completely in love with the

petitioner no. 1. Furthermore, any physical intimacy between the

parties was consensual.

12. It was further submitted that during his courtship with the opposite

party no. 2 herein, she never became pregnant and, as such the

statements made in the complaint are false and are only made to

attract Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code. From the written

complaint it would appear that no valid marriage between the parties

has been solemnised; therefore, Section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code is also not applicable against the petitioners herein.

13. It was further submitted that it is the de facto complainant who has

committed fraud upon the petitioner no. 1 herein by suppressing the

actual facts that she is married and is mother of a child.

Furthermore, it is almost an unbelievable story that the de facto

8

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

complainant, knowing fully well that the petitioner no. 1 is a

government servant and working as a police constable, could not hide

his actual religion or name for five years even if the FIR story is taken

as a gospel truth. Such allegations are frivolous and are merely an

endeavour to attract sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

14. It was further submitted that the petitioner nos. 2 to 11 herein have

never seen or met with the de-facto complainant herein and, as such,

they are in no way connected with the instant criminal case and

unaware of their affair or relationship. The complainant never visited

the house of the petitioner no. 1, nor was tortured by them. The

petitioners are innocent and not connected with the commission of

offence as alleged or at all but they have been falsely implicated in the

instant case. The petitioner nos. 2 to 11 on apprehension of their

arrest in connection with the said case surrendered before the court

of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore and

filed an application for bail and were granted bail.

15. It was further submitted that the alleged incident of torture is an

afterthought to ruin the life and career of the petitioner no. 1 herein.

Furthermore, the medical reports furnished or relied upon by the

complainant are of dates after the complaint has been lodged which

clearly shows the discrepancies. The First Information Report is false

and based on a concocted story and doesn't disclose commission of

9

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

any offence by the petitioner nos. 2 to 11 herein; their names should

immediately be expunged or quashed from Nimta P.S. case no.

885/2021 for securing ends of justice; otherwise it would be a sheer

abuse of process of law.

16. Learned senior counsel has relied upon the decisions in the case of

Shivcharan Lal Verma and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

1

particularly in paragraph no. 2; as well as in P. Sivakumar and Ors.

Vs. State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police etc.

2

particularly in paragraph nos. 5 and 7 in support of his contention

that Section 498A would not be attracted if the marriage itself is not

valid. The decision in the case of Haji Iqbal Alias Bala Through

S.P.O.A. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

3

particularly in paragraph no. 15

was relied upon to highlight the width of section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

17. Learned Counsel further relied upon the decision in the case of

Rajnish Singh Alias Soni Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

4

particularly in paragraph nos. 25, 29, 35 and 37 to bolster his

submission that consensual intercourse among two adults is not an

offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

18. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it was further

contended that a disciplinary proceeding, being Birbhum District

1

(2007) 15 SCC 369;

2

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1737;

3

(2024) 15 SCC 776;

4

(2025) 4 SCC 197;

10

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

Police Force Case No. 06/22 dated 25.05.2022, was initiated against

the petitioner no. 1. The charges were that, having availed leave for

fifteen days from 21.01.2022, he failed to rejoin even after

19.02.2022, in violation of Rule 830 of the Police Regulations of

Bengal, Vol. I, 1943. The charges also included the allegations of the

opposite party no. 2, which form the subject matter of Nimta P.S.

Case No. 885/2021. It was submitted that, in the course of the

enquiry, the allegations of impersonation and of assault on the

opposite party no. 2 could not be proved. Learned senior counsel

contended that, the very allegations on which the criminal proceeding

rests having failed in the departmental enquiry, the continuance of

the criminal proceeding against the petitioners would be an abuse of

the process of law and the same is therefore liable to be quashed to

secure the ends of justice

19. Reliance in this context is placed on the decisions in Ashoo

Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police,

EOW, CBI and Anr.

5

particularly in paragraph nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14 and 15, as well as in Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of

W.B. & Anr.

6

particularly in paragraph nos. 26, 31, 38 and 39

contending that when disciplinary proceedings are dropped and are

not proved, criminal proceedings on the same cannot be allowed to

5

(2020) 9 SCC 636;

6

(2011) 3 SCC 581;

11

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

continue especially on the underlying principle of higher standard of

proof in criminal cases.

20. Finally learned Counsel relied upon the decision in the case of Rajiv

Thapar & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor,

7

particularly in paragraphs

25, 26 and 30 to support his submission that this High Court can

exercise inherent power under Section 482 to quash the proceedings

initiated by the de facto complainant based on false and concocted

allegations suppressing and misrepresenting the actual facts.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2:

21. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party

no. 2 strenuously raised objections against the submission of the

learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner, and further argued that she

was deceived and cheated by the petitioner no.1 by suppressing his

actual religion and his name and has been used by the accused no. 1

for his sexual pleasure with bad intention to cheat and misuse

continuously. The petitioner no. 1 suppressed his actual name and

represented himself as Hindu by indicating his name as ‘Rajib

Sarkar’. He did not disclose his previous marriage and his two

children either. It is also submitted that the marriage ceremony at the

temple has no value in the eyes of law, as he is not Hindu by religion

and no proper legal process was followed.

7

(2013) 3 SCC 330.

12

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

22. The Learned counsel further submitted that Petitioner No. 1 was not

only harassed sexually, but his other family members tortured her

both physically and mentally by assaulting her with fists, blows, and

lathi and other means like kicks. She further suffered and miscarried

due to constant assault by the petitioner no. 1 and others. Due to

such circumstances, she suffered from acute depression and fears for

her life. It was a “love jihad” by the petitioner no.1. The case of the

accused persons should not be stalled at this initial stage; otherwise,

the Opposite party no. 2 will be deprived of justice. A full-fledged trial

is required to be conducted to unearth the truth and punish the

actual culprits.

23. Finally, it was submitted that departmental proceedings and criminal

proceedings are two different facts and circumstances. The criminal

proceedings must be proved with sufficient evidence beyond

reasonable doubt, whereas departmental proceedings are decided on

the balance of probabilities and does not need the same level of proof.

Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are not

applicable in the present facts and circumstances of this case.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:

24. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State produced the case

diary and further submitted that the case is based on “love jihad”,

which should not be ignored and quashed at this stage. During

13

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

investigation, sufficient and clinching evidence was collected against

the petitioners. Even after knowing the actual facts of suppression of

religion and name of the petitioner no.1, he had intercourse with her

forcibly and upon threat and without her consent. Other accused

persons supported the petitioner No.1 for commission of such offence

as alleged by the victim lady and also assaulted her.

25. In course of investigation, statements were recorded by the

Investigating Officer under section 161 and 164 of the witnesses

including, priest, neighbour, and de facto-complainant. From there, it

was ascertained that the petitioner no.1 got married with the defacto-

complainant in Mandir and put vermillion on her forehead as per

Hindu rites and rituals to make her believe that she has become his

wife and had sexual intercourse with her thereafter.

26. The learned PP further draws the attention of this court to the

statement of the landlord of the tenanted premises, recorded under

section 161 of the Cr.P.C., where they started residing as husband

and wife in Burdwan after their marriage. He specifically stated that

the petitioner no. 1 suppressed his identity and disclosed his name

as ‘Rajib Sarkar’ and his wife as ‘Riya Chakraborty’. He further stated

that she became pregnant. The rent was fixed at Rs. 2700/- per

month.

14

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

27. The victim also stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 of

the Cr.P.C. about the alleged non-consensual sexual intercourse,

after becoming aware of his real name, religion and his previous

marriage and two daughters. She further stated that she became

pregnant, and subsequently, she suffered a miscarriage due to severe

assault on her abdomen.

28. Finally, it was submitted that during investigation, it was revealed by

the doctor who treated her that there was slight bleeding in her

vagina, which may have been due to the threat of alleged abortion

and required confirmation via USG. However, there was no certain

confirmation of pregnancy as she eventually did not show up for the

same. However, the doctor confirmed she did not disclose any assault

or injury; as such, Section 313 was dropped by the investigating

agency at the time of filing the charge sheet. Subsequently, the

charge sheet, being no. 389 of 2024 dated 30

th

September, 2024, was

submitted under sections 419/420/498A/323/416/120B/506/34 of

IPC, against the petitioners, when the prima facie case was

established against them. As such, the case of the petitioners is liable

to be dismissed, and the proceedings should be allowed to continue

in order to uncover the truth and punish accordingly, if they are

found guilty.

15

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS BY THIS COURT :

29. Heard the arguments and submissions made by the learned counsels

appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the

materials on record as well as the case diary, this Court finds that

prima facie, the petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2 shared a

romantic relationship, and they got married at a temple at Digha in

or about May 2021, and that they thereafter lived together at

Bardhaman in a tenanted premises. What is in dispute is whether the

petitioner no. 1 induced that relationship and her consent by

deliberately misrepresenting his name, religion and marital status,

and whether the later acts of assault, forcibly intercourse and

intimidation were committed.

30. The petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit annexing

documents to show that the opposite party no. 2 was herself

previously married and had suppressed her name and marital status.

It is also contended that the petitioner no. 1, was a constable at

Hatkalua Camp Moregram, and therefore, he could not have

concealed his name and religion for about five years. These

contentions raise a defence to be tested by evidence. In a proceeding

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court does not weigh the petitioners’

documents against the prosecution case or hold an inquiry into the

genuineness or falsification of the allegations. The material relied

16

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

upon does not meet the standard of being unimpeachable and of

sterling quality, as required in the decision relied upon by the

Petitioners in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Supra) to justify

interference. The documents may be proved and relied on by the

petitioners at trial after leading evidence after facing cross-

examination.

31. As to Sections 416, 419 and 420 IPC, the allegation is that the

petitioner no. 1 assumed a false identity and represented himself as

an unmarried Hindu named “Rajib Sarkar”, and that the opposite

party no. 2’s consent to the relationship and the ceremony was

obtained on that footing. Whether consent was vitiated by a

misconception of fact within Section 90 IPC, and whether the

opposite party no. 2 knew the true position, cannot be decided

without evidence. The decision in Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of

U.P. (Supra), relied upon by the Petitioners, is concerned with the

distinction between a consensual relationship and one induced by a

false promise. The allegation here goes beyond a mere breach of

promise and extends to the identity and status of the accused.

Therefore, the aforesaid authority cannot be applied to quash the

proceeding at the initial stage without a factual finding that consent

was free and informed.

17

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

32. As to Section 498A IPC, the petitioners rely on Shivcharan Lal

Verma (Supra) and P. Sivakumar (Supra) to say that the provision

does not apply where the marriage is void. The Court notes that the

opposite party no. 2 herself describes the ceremony as having no legal

validity, and that the charge sheet is not confined to Section 498A.

However, even if that offence was doubtful, the allegations of assault,

wrongful confinement, sexual intercourse without consent and

forcibly, intimidation and deception are distinct and independently

disclose cognizable offences. A proceeding is not liable to be quashed

in its entirety merely because one of the sections invoked may not

ultimately be sustained. Whether Section 498A is attracted on these

facts is a matter for the trial court at the stage of charge or trial,

where it can be decided on the evidence and with the benefit of the

authorities cited.

33. So far as the petitioner nos. 2 to 11 are concerned, they are close

relatives and one of them is an associate of the petitioner no. 1. The

allegation, even as recorded in the section 164 statement of the

victim, is that on 09.07.2021, at the residence of the petitioner no. 1

at Murshidabad, they assaulted the opposite party no. 2 with fists,

kicks and a lathi and attempted to strangle her with a saree on

learning of her pregnancy. The petitioners’ plea that they never met

the complainant is a plea of denial. The allegations against these

18

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

petitioners cannot be dismissed as omnibus or inherently improbable

at this stage. The injury report from the Khargram Rural Hospital,

Murshidabad, dated 10.07.2021 suggests injury on the whole body of

the victim/ Opposite Party no. 2. The fact that these petitioners were

granted bail has no bearing on whether the proceeding is liable to be

quashed.

34. Insofar as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, there is sufficient

material against him. The statements recorded under Section 161 of

the landlord of the Bardhaman premises, neighbour and the priest

disclose his alleged involvement in the offences. The landlord stated

that the couple lived there as husband and wife under the name

“Rajib Sarkar” and “Ria Chakraborty”. That statement is directly

relevant to the allegation of false identity. The statement recorded

under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no. 2 further aid their

involvement in commission of offence by the petitioners.

35. The petitioners contended that, since the allegations of impersonation

and of assault on the opposite party no. 2 were not proved in the

disciplinary proceedings being Birbhum District Police Force Case No.

06/22, the criminal proceeding cannot be sustained. The Court has

considered the contention and is unable to accept it at this stage, for

the following reasons.

19

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

36. A departmental enquiry and a criminal prosecution as has been

stated by learned counsel for the State, differ in object, standard of

proof and forum, and a finding in the former does not bind the

criminal court. A finding that the complainant failed to produce

evidence before the authority is not necessarily a finding on merits

that the allegations are false. The enquiry was also directed against

the petitioner no. 1 alone and did not adjudicate on the allegations of

09.07.2021 against the petitioner nos. 2 to 11. In the instant case,

the weight of that outcome is on the trial court, and the disciplinary

proceeding does not by itself establish that the criminal case is an

abuse of the process of law.

37. We should not forget the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and

Others

8

wherein several principles were laid down to be followed by

the Court while exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; out of those

principles, a few are as follows: -

“i) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly

with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest

of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the

context of death penalty).

8

(2021) SCC Online SC 315

20

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

ii) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the

initial stage;

iii) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not

confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act

according to its whims or caprice;

iv) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but

conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more

cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the

Court;

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which

is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to

the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the

allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia

which must disclose all facts and details relating to the

offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the

police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits

of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to

complete the investigation. It would be premature to

pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the

complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that

it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation,

if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance

in the application made by the complainant, the

investigating officer may file an appropriate

report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may

21

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance

with the known procedure;

vii) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the

alleged accused and the Court when it exercises the power

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether

the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a

cognizable offence or not. The Court is not required to

consider on merits whether or not the merits of the

allegations make out a cognizable offence and the Court

has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate

the allegations in the FIR;”

38. In the present case, after culmination of the investigation, a charge

sheet has been submitted against the petitioner under sections

419/420/498A/323/416/120B/506/34 of IPC, when prima facie

case has been established against the petitioners.

39. The learned counsels for the opposite party no. 2 and the State have

described this case as one of “love jihad”. However, upon overall

consideration of the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164

Cr.P.C. and the allegations made by the opposite party no. 2 herself

against the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that none of the

aforesaid allegations discloses any attempt by the petitioner no. 1

and/or the other petitioners to convert her to Islam, or any

inducement, coercion or pressure to that end. The case set up is

confined to the suppression of his name, religion and marital status.

22

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

The characterisation of the case as “love jihad” is therefore

unsupported by the materials on record at this stage and has no

bearing on this Court’s assessment. There is no single central

legislation or Act passed by the Parliament of India that defines or

even recognizes “love jihad”, let alone criminalise it. Furthermore,

West Bengal does not have an active law specifically against the same

or anti conversion legislation in effect. The allegation of suppression

remains relevant to Sections 416, 419 and 420 IPC, namely, whether

the petitioner no. 1 represented himself as an unmarried Hindu

named “Rajib Sarkar” and whether the consent of the opposite party

no. 2 was obtained on that footing. These are questions of fact for the

trial court to decide on evidence.

40. Applying these principles, the Court is not persuaded that this is a

case calling for the exercise of inherent powers. The allegations, read

with the case diary and charge sheet, prima facie disclose the

commission of cognizable offences. The defences taken, that the

relationship was consensual, that the opposite party no. 2 herself

suppressed facts, that the petitioners were falsely implicated by

blackmail, and that the medical evidence does not support the

allegations, all depend on appreciation of evidence. They are to be put

to the test before the trial court, and this Court should not pre-empt

that exercise. Interference at this stage would amount to a mini-trial.

23

CRR No. 3501 of 2022

41. In view of the above-mentioned facts and prima facie materials

available in the case diary, this Court is of the opinion that the

instant Criminal Revisional application is devoid of merits.

42. Accordingly, CRR No. 3501 of 2022 is dismissed. CRAN 3 of 2023

and CRAN 4 of 2023 are also, thus, disposed of.

43. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Trial Court for

information.

44. Case Diary, if any, is to be returned to the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the State.

45. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

46. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, is to

be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all legal

formalities.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

P. Adak (P.A.)