Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 386
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………..OF 2025
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO.6821 OF 2024]
JOTHIRAGAWAN …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE REP. BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave Granted.
2. An application made under Section 482 of the
1
Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by the High
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.03.24
17:05:17 IST
Reason:
1 For brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’
Page 1 of 12
Court of Judicature at Madras; which is impugned
herein.
3. We heard Mr. M. P. Parthiban, learned
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sabarish Subramanian,
learned Counsel for the State and Mr. Vairawan A.S.
learned Counsel for the complainant.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant
submitted that there were multiple interactions by the
complainant and the accused, who were both major
individuals, which clearly indicates consent on the part
of the complainant, the alleged victim. It is argued that
there was never a promise of marriage given by the
accused so as to induce the complainant into a physical
relationship. This is also not evident from the
statements of the victim in the complaint that was given
before the police; whereas consent is evident therefrom.
There can be no prosecution lodged for rape based on
the complaint. Insofar as the allegation of promise of
Page 2 of 12
marriage to induce the complainant to consent, the
learned Counsel relies on a judgment of this Court in
“ Prithvirajan vs. The State Represented by the Inspector
2
of Police & Another ” passed on 20.01.2025.
5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
State points out that there is no reason to interfere at
this stage, especially since the statements given by the
victim clearly indicates that she was coerced into a
physical relationship. Only a trial would reveal what
actually transpired and there is no reason to now invoke
the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel appearing for the victim,
however, asserts that the victim has specifically alleged
inducement on the promise of marriage, which brings it
3
under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code being a
consent on clear misrepresentation and misconception.
The charge is of rape and cheating; the fraudulent
2 Criminal Appeal No.282 of 2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No.12663 of 2022
3 For brevity ‘I.P.C.’
Page 3 of 12
inducement being evident from the promise which was
not kept.
6. The High Court had relied on a decision of
this Court and found that the victim and the accused
were aged about 22 years, were close relatives and the
complaint given by the victim clearly indicates that the
accused obtained a forced consent from her by giving a
promise to marry her. It was also found that the victim
had categorically stated that subsequently the accused
had refused to marry her. Whether the accused had
duped the victim to have sexual intercourse with him on
the promise of marriage, was a matter of trial, held the
Learned Sessions Judge. The application hence, was
dismissed.
7. We have gone through the First Information
Statement made by the complainant and the statement
given before the Police which would form the basis of the
trial. Unless the ingredients of an offence under Section
Page 4 of 12
376 of the I.P.C. comes forth from these documents;
which read together reveal identical statements, there
cannot be any continuation of the prosecution. In this
2
context, we also have to notice from which
Prithivirajan
paragraph 7 is extracted hereunder:
“7. The instant case is one of consensual
relationship between the appellant and
prosecutrix. Even otherwise, it does not
appear from the record that the initial
promise to marry allegedly made by the
appellant was false to begin with. Perusal
of FIR itself suggests that the alleged
promise to marry could not be fulfilled by
the appellant due to intervening
circumstances. Consequently, the
relationship ended because of which the
present FIR came to be registered. Under
these circumstances, letting the appellant
face trial would be nothing short of an
abuse of the process of the Court. This
cannot be permitted.”
Page 5 of 12
8. As per the complaint and the statement given
by the victim, the couple had sexual intercourse thrice.
They first met in a family function, where they both
exchanged their phone numbers. After a few days, the
accused expressed his desire to marry the victim, when
the victim categorically told him that she was studying
and she would think it over, after completing her
studies. Thus, started a relationship which resulted in
frequent conversations and exchange of messages over
the mobile phone and intermittent visits by the accused,
to the house of the victim’s grandmother, where she was
residing; as stated by the complainant herself. On
17.04.2021, at the request of the accused, the victim
accompanied him to a movie after which, she felt dizzy
and they took a room in a hotel where according to the
victim, there was an ‘abrupt and unexpected’ sexual
intercourse, under coercion against her wish. Despite
Page 6 of 12
protesting and crying out the accused continued the act,
after which she told him that he had ruined her life. It
was at this juncture, that a promise was made by the
accused, putting his hand on her head, that he would
marry her. From the statements recorded we do not find
any inducement by the accused, with a promise of
marriage, before the alleged crime, leading to the sexual
intercourse. The marriage proposal was not accepted by
the victim and there is not even a statement that she
succumbed to the sexual intercourse on such proposal;
being made. It is the definite case put forth by the
victim that the accused had acted unexpectedly and she
was coerced into a sexual intercourse despite her
protests. The promise as stated, if at all, was after the
intercourse.
9. The complaint proceeds that again on the
pretext of discussing marriage, the accused called the
victim and she willingly accompanied him to the very
Page 7 of 12
same hotel. It was stated that the accused made entries
in the hotel register, falsifying their names. On entering
the room when the victim wanted to talk about marriage,
it is the specific statement that the accused refused to
talk about it till they had an intercourse and thus again
the victim was coerced into a sexual intercourse. At this
stage also, there is no promise of marriage or any
inducement thereby and the allegation was that the
accused threatened her that he would not marry, if she
did not have sexual intercourse with him and then
forcibly had such intercourse. These are mutually
destructive contentions, since, if there is consent, there
cannot be alleged forceful intercourse and it could only
be contended that consent was obtained on
misrepresentation or coercion.
10. It is also the categoric statement of the victim
that after both instances the victim was mentally upset
but this did not prevent her from, still again going to the
Page 8 of 12
very same hotel at the request of the accused, a third
time. The story was repeated, of the talk of marriage
having been kept aside till the sexual intercourse had
been carried out, again forcefully. There is also an
allegation of threat and coercion before they had
physical relationship. It is the victim’s case that after
the three incidents, the complainant refused to pick up
the telephone and when the victim eventually could
contact him, he refused to solemnise their relationship
by a valid marriage.
11. We have already found that there is no
promise of marriage to coerce consent from the victim for
sexual intercourse; as forthcoming from the statements
made by the victim. The promise if any was after the first
physical intercourse and even later the allegation was
forceful intercourse without any consent. In all the three
instances it was the allegation that, the intercourse was
on threat and coercion and there is no consent spoken of
Page 9 of 12
by the victim, in which case there cannot be any
inducement found, on a promise held out. The allegation
of forceful intercourse on threat and coercion is also not
believable, given the relationship admitted between the
parties and the willing and repeated excursions to hotel
rooms.
12. On a reading of the statements made by the
victim before the Police, both the First Information
Statement and that recorded later on, we are not
convinced that the sexual relationship admitted by both
the parties was without the consent of the victim. That
they were closely related and were in a relationship is
admitted by the victim. The allegation is also of threat
and coercion against the victim, to have sexual
intercourse with the accused, which even as per the
victim’s statement was repeated thrice in the same
manner, when she willingly accompanied the accused to
a hotel room. The victim had also categorically stated
Page 10 of 12
that after the first incident and the second incident she
was mentally upset, but that did not caution her from
again accompanying the accused to hotel rooms.
13. Having heard both sides in this case, we have
absolutely no doubt in our mind that the criminal
proceedings initiated against the present appellant are
nothing but an abuse of process of the court. This is
precisely a case where the High Court should have
interfered in exercise of its inherent and extraordinary
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. These
proceedings cannot go on. Hence, we direct that the
proceedings initiated at the instance of the complainant
which are presently going on before Sessions Judge
(Mahila Court), Erode in S.C. No. 49 of 2022, be hereby
quashed.
14. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed on the
aforesaid terms.
Page 11 of 12
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………………..……………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………………..……………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI;
March 24, 2025.
Page 12 of 12
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………..OF 2025
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO.6821 OF 2024]
JOTHIRAGAWAN …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE REP. BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave Granted.
2. An application made under Section 482 of the
1
Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by the High
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.03.24
17:05:17 IST
Reason:
1 For brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’
Page 1 of 12
Court of Judicature at Madras; which is impugned
herein.
3. We heard Mr. M. P. Parthiban, learned
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sabarish Subramanian,
learned Counsel for the State and Mr. Vairawan A.S.
learned Counsel for the complainant.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant
submitted that there were multiple interactions by the
complainant and the accused, who were both major
individuals, which clearly indicates consent on the part
of the complainant, the alleged victim. It is argued that
there was never a promise of marriage given by the
accused so as to induce the complainant into a physical
relationship. This is also not evident from the
statements of the victim in the complaint that was given
before the police; whereas consent is evident therefrom.
There can be no prosecution lodged for rape based on
the complaint. Insofar as the allegation of promise of
Page 2 of 12
marriage to induce the complainant to consent, the
learned Counsel relies on a judgment of this Court in
“ Prithvirajan vs. The State Represented by the Inspector
2
of Police & Another ” passed on 20.01.2025.
5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
State points out that there is no reason to interfere at
this stage, especially since the statements given by the
victim clearly indicates that she was coerced into a
physical relationship. Only a trial would reveal what
actually transpired and there is no reason to now invoke
the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel appearing for the victim,
however, asserts that the victim has specifically alleged
inducement on the promise of marriage, which brings it
3
under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code being a
consent on clear misrepresentation and misconception.
The charge is of rape and cheating; the fraudulent
2 Criminal Appeal No.282 of 2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No.12663 of 2022
3 For brevity ‘I.P.C.’
Page 3 of 12
inducement being evident from the promise which was
not kept.
6. The High Court had relied on a decision of
this Court and found that the victim and the accused
were aged about 22 years, were close relatives and the
complaint given by the victim clearly indicates that the
accused obtained a forced consent from her by giving a
promise to marry her. It was also found that the victim
had categorically stated that subsequently the accused
had refused to marry her. Whether the accused had
duped the victim to have sexual intercourse with him on
the promise of marriage, was a matter of trial, held the
Learned Sessions Judge. The application hence, was
dismissed.
7. We have gone through the First Information
Statement made by the complainant and the statement
given before the Police which would form the basis of the
trial. Unless the ingredients of an offence under Section
Page 4 of 12
376 of the I.P.C. comes forth from these documents;
which read together reveal identical statements, there
cannot be any continuation of the prosecution. In this
2
context, we also have to notice from which
Prithivirajan
paragraph 7 is extracted hereunder:
“7. The instant case is one of consensual
relationship between the appellant and
prosecutrix. Even otherwise, it does not
appear from the record that the initial
promise to marry allegedly made by the
appellant was false to begin with. Perusal
of FIR itself suggests that the alleged
promise to marry could not be fulfilled by
the appellant due to intervening
circumstances. Consequently, the
relationship ended because of which the
present FIR came to be registered. Under
these circumstances, letting the appellant
face trial would be nothing short of an
abuse of the process of the Court. This
cannot be permitted.”
Page 5 of 12
8. As per the complaint and the statement given
by the victim, the couple had sexual intercourse thrice.
They first met in a family function, where they both
exchanged their phone numbers. After a few days, the
accused expressed his desire to marry the victim, when
the victim categorically told him that she was studying
and she would think it over, after completing her
studies. Thus, started a relationship which resulted in
frequent conversations and exchange of messages over
the mobile phone and intermittent visits by the accused,
to the house of the victim’s grandmother, where she was
residing; as stated by the complainant herself. On
17.04.2021, at the request of the accused, the victim
accompanied him to a movie after which, she felt dizzy
and they took a room in a hotel where according to the
victim, there was an ‘abrupt and unexpected’ sexual
intercourse, under coercion against her wish. Despite
Page 6 of 12
protesting and crying out the accused continued the act,
after which she told him that he had ruined her life. It
was at this juncture, that a promise was made by the
accused, putting his hand on her head, that he would
marry her. From the statements recorded we do not find
any inducement by the accused, with a promise of
marriage, before the alleged crime, leading to the sexual
intercourse. The marriage proposal was not accepted by
the victim and there is not even a statement that she
succumbed to the sexual intercourse on such proposal;
being made. It is the definite case put forth by the
victim that the accused had acted unexpectedly and she
was coerced into a sexual intercourse despite her
protests. The promise as stated, if at all, was after the
intercourse.
9. The complaint proceeds that again on the
pretext of discussing marriage, the accused called the
victim and she willingly accompanied him to the very
Page 7 of 12
same hotel. It was stated that the accused made entries
in the hotel register, falsifying their names. On entering
the room when the victim wanted to talk about marriage,
it is the specific statement that the accused refused to
talk about it till they had an intercourse and thus again
the victim was coerced into a sexual intercourse. At this
stage also, there is no promise of marriage or any
inducement thereby and the allegation was that the
accused threatened her that he would not marry, if she
did not have sexual intercourse with him and then
forcibly had such intercourse. These are mutually
destructive contentions, since, if there is consent, there
cannot be alleged forceful intercourse and it could only
be contended that consent was obtained on
misrepresentation or coercion.
10. It is also the categoric statement of the victim
that after both instances the victim was mentally upset
but this did not prevent her from, still again going to the
Page 8 of 12
very same hotel at the request of the accused, a third
time. The story was repeated, of the talk of marriage
having been kept aside till the sexual intercourse had
been carried out, again forcefully. There is also an
allegation of threat and coercion before they had
physical relationship. It is the victim’s case that after
the three incidents, the complainant refused to pick up
the telephone and when the victim eventually could
contact him, he refused to solemnise their relationship
by a valid marriage.
11. We have already found that there is no
promise of marriage to coerce consent from the victim for
sexual intercourse; as forthcoming from the statements
made by the victim. The promise if any was after the first
physical intercourse and even later the allegation was
forceful intercourse without any consent. In all the three
instances it was the allegation that, the intercourse was
on threat and coercion and there is no consent spoken of
Page 9 of 12
by the victim, in which case there cannot be any
inducement found, on a promise held out. The allegation
of forceful intercourse on threat and coercion is also not
believable, given the relationship admitted between the
parties and the willing and repeated excursions to hotel
rooms.
12. On a reading of the statements made by the
victim before the Police, both the First Information
Statement and that recorded later on, we are not
convinced that the sexual relationship admitted by both
the parties was without the consent of the victim. That
they were closely related and were in a relationship is
admitted by the victim. The allegation is also of threat
and coercion against the victim, to have sexual
intercourse with the accused, which even as per the
victim’s statement was repeated thrice in the same
manner, when she willingly accompanied the accused to
a hotel room. The victim had also categorically stated
Page 10 of 12
that after the first incident and the second incident she
was mentally upset, but that did not caution her from
again accompanying the accused to hotel rooms.
13. Having heard both sides in this case, we have
absolutely no doubt in our mind that the criminal
proceedings initiated against the present appellant are
nothing but an abuse of process of the court. This is
precisely a case where the High Court should have
interfered in exercise of its inherent and extraordinary
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. These
proceedings cannot go on. Hence, we direct that the
proceedings initiated at the instance of the complainant
which are presently going on before Sessions Judge
(Mahila Court), Erode in S.C. No. 49 of 2022, be hereby
quashed.
14. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed on the
aforesaid terms.
Page 11 of 12
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………………..……………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………………..……………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI;
March 24, 2025.
Page 12 of 12