Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Jothiragawan – Appellant
VERSUS
State Rep. By The Inspector of Police & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1434 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 6821 of 2024]
Decided On : 24-03-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376 and 90 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 64 and 28] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] –Sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage – Consent given under misconception of fact – Unless ingredients of offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. comes forth from First Information Statement made by complainant and statement given before Police, there cannot be any continuation of the prosecution – There is no promise of marriage to coerce consent from victim for sexual intercourse; as forthcoming from statements made by victim – Promise was after first physical intercourse and even later allegation was forceful intercourse without any consent – In all three instances it was allegation that intercourse was on threat and coercion and there is no consent spoken of by victim, in which case there cannot be any inducement found, on a promise held out – Allegation of forceful intercourse on threat and coercion is also not believable, given relationship admitted between parties and the willing and repeated excursions to hotel rooms – Court is not convinced that sexual relationship admitted by both parties was without consent of victim – That they were closely related and were in a relationship is admitted by victim – Criminal proceedings initiated against appellant are nothing but abuse of process of court – These proceedings cannot go on – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 7, 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
An application made under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure1 was rejected by High Court of Judicature at Madras; which is impugned herein. It is victim’s case that after three incidents of sexual intercourse, complainant refused to pick up telephone and when the victim eventually could contact him, he refused to solemnise their relationship by a valid marriage.
Findings of Court:
This is precisely a case where High Court should have interfered in exercise of its inherent and extraordinary powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave Granted.
2. An application made under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [For brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’] was rejected by the High 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 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 of Police & Another, Criminal Appeal No.282 of 2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No.12663 of 2022” 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 under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code [For brevity ‘I.P.C.’] being a consent on clear misrepresentation and misconception.
The charge is of rape and cheating; the fraudulent 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 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 context, we also have to notice Prithivirajan2 from which paragraph 7 is extracted hereunder:
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 ex
Sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage – Consent given under misconception of fact cannot be countenanced on mutually destructive plea given by a consenting victim.
Consent cannot be deemed vitiated merely due to a breakdown of a relationship without supporting evidence of fraud or coercion at the time of the act.
Establishing criminal liability for rape based on a false promise of marriage requires evidence of original intent to deceive; an absence of such intent invalidates claims of rape under IPC.
Consent for sexual relations cannot be deemed invalid unless there is clear evidence of misrepresentation regarding the promise of marriage.
Consent obtained through a promise of marriage does not constitute a misconception of fact unless it is proven to be made with deceitful intent. Acquittal is warranted when victim's autonomy and impl....
Section 375 of IPC states that a man is said to commit rape if he has had any form of sexual intercourse without consent of a woman.
Mere breach of promise to marry after consensual relations between adults does not constitute rape unless promise false from inception; long relationship shows no initial deceit, justifying quashing ....
Forcible initial rape constitutes offence despite post-rape marriage promise, blackmail, and subsequent relations; prima facie case from prosecutrix solemn affirmation warrants trial, not quashing un....
A breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it can be proven that the promise was made with intent to deceive from the outset.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
