Court holds that prima facie evidence discloses cognizable offences; departmental exoneration insufficient to halt criminal trial
In a significant judgment dated October 15, 2026, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against Md. Rafikul Islam, a police constable, and several others accused in a complex case involving allegations of cheating by false identity, assault, intimidation, and conspiracy. The case arose from an FIR registered at Nimta Police Station (Case No. 885/2021) based on the complaint of a woman who alleged that Rafikul Islam had introduced himself under a false Hindu name, "Rajib Sarkar," suppressed his religion and prior marital status, and induced her into a relationship culminating in a temple marriage. Subsequently, she alleged physical assault, intimidation, and forced sexual intercourse after the truth about his identity emerged.
The petitioners argued that the allegations were fabricated and motivated by blackmail and monetary extortion. They contended that the complainant was herself previously married and had concealed this fact. Additionally, they relied on the outcome of a disciplinary enquiry which had exonerated the police constable of impersonation and assault charges, claiming this should bar criminal prosecution. They also questioned the validity of the temple marriage and applicability of Section 498A IPC relating to cruelty by husband or his relatives.
The High Court, after examining the facts and case materials including the FIR, case diary, charge sheet, and statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., held that at the quashing stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court cannot conduct a mini-trial or weigh conflicting evidence or defence documents against prosecution allegations. The questions of whether consent was vitiated by deception, the genuineness of the marriage, or the truthfulness of assault claims are matters for trial and not to be decided prematurely.
The Court noted that the departmental enquiry and criminal prosecution differ fundamentally in their objectives, standards of proof, and forums, and that a failure to prove charges in departmental proceedings does not necessarily preclude criminal prosecution. The allegations against the accused's relatives who purportedly assaulted the complainant were also held to be prima facie credible given medical injury reports and the complainant's statement, despite their claims of denial.
Significantly, the Court addressed the characterization of the case as one of "love jihad"-a politically sensitive and controversial term implying religiously motivated conversion through marriage or relationship. The Court clarified that mere suppression of religion and name without any evidence of coercion or pressure for religious conversion does not amount to "love jihad" under any existing law. It emphasized that neither the Indian Penal Code nor any central legislation or state law in West Bengal criminalizes "love jihad" as a distinct offence. Therefore, the case must be adjudicated on the basis of ordinary offences such as cheating, assault, and intimidation as per the FIR and charge-sheet.
The Court reiterated the Supreme Court's guidelines on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that such powers should be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases where the allegations on the face of the record do not disclose any cognizable offence or where the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process. Since the charge-sheet disclosed prima facie cognizable offences, and the defence raised questions of fact requiring evidence, the Court declined to quash the proceedings.
The High Court dismissed the revision petition and directed that the matter proceed to trial to determine the veracity of the allegations. The judgment also directed that a copy of the decision be sent to the trial court for information and that the case diary be returned to the State counsel.
This decision underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in quashing criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving allegations of deception in personal relationships and serious offences such as assault and intimidation. It also clarifies the legal position regarding the term "love jihad," affirming that without material evidence of religious conversion or coercion, such labels have no bearing on the legal analysis of the charges.
Bottom Line:
Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be granted where FIR, case diary and charge-sheet prima facie disclose offences of cheating by false identity, assault, intimidation and conspiracy arising out of a relationship allegedly induced by suppression of name, religion and marital status; departmental exoneration does not by itself nullify criminal prosecution, and mere use of the expression "love jihad" without allegations of conversion is unsupported.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 156(3), 161, 164, 313, 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 34, 90, 313, 323, 416, 419, 420, 498A, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Md. Rafikul Islam v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2998017
