Supreme Court Quashes Cheating Case After Amicable Settlement Between Parties

🧾 Judgment Summary: Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 741
Date of Judgment: July 29, 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia & Justice Aravind Kumar
Appeal Type: Criminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7004 of 2025)

⚖️ Key Legal Issues:

• Can criminal proceedings for rape under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act be quashed when the relationship was consensual and the allegation of minority at the time of the relationship is unsupported by evidence?

📝 Background:

• The prosecutrix alleged that when she was a minor (15 years old), she entered into a consensual relationship with the appellant based on a promise of marriage.
• The appellant allegedly backed out after she became a major, and she faced humiliation by his family, leading to the filing of an FIR under Sections 417, 376, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
• The FIR was lodged more than 3 years after the alleged relationship began.
• The Calcutta High Court quashed the case only against the family members, but refused to quash it against the appellant.
• The appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the case.

👨‍⚖️ Supreme Court’s Observations:

1. Consent and Minority Not Proven:
   • The prosecutrix admitted she was in a consensual relationship.
   • Her claim that she was a minor at the time was made only in the FIR and not supported by forensic or documentary evidence.
2. Delay in FIR Weakens Prosecution:
   • The FIR was lodged after a long delay of over 3 years, seemingly to invoke the POCSO Act and pressurize the appellant.
   • The delay, along with the consensual nature of the relationship, cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case.
3. Promise to Marry ≠ Rape:
   • Citing precedents like Prithivirajan v. State (2025), Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020), the Court reiterated: A consensual physical relationship based on a genuine promise to marry does not amount to rape, unless the promise was false at inception.
4. No Case Under POCSO Act Made Out:
   • In absence of credible evidence proving minority at the time of the relationship, invocation of Section 6 of the POCSO Act was found to be abuse of process.
5. Abuse of Process:
   • The Court held that the prosecution was initiated only after the relationship ended, and it amounted to misuse of criminal law.

✅ Final Judgment / Conclusion:

• Appeal allowed.
• Criminal proceedings against the appellant quashed.
• Supreme Court found the case to be a clear abuse of process, and that the High Court should have quashed the case for the appellant as well, just as it did for his family members.

📚 Legal Principle Reaffirmed:

A delayed FIR, unsupported claim of minority, and a consensual relationship based on a promise to marry, absent evidence of falsehood or coercion, cannot form the basis of a prosecution under Section 376 IPC or POCSO Act.