SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Saturday, August 23, 2025

Printed For: shivika karanwal, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2025 SCC OnLine SC 628

In the Supreme Court of India

(BEFORE SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.)

Jothiragawan … Appellant;
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police and Another …
Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No…………..of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Crl)
No. 6821 of 2024]
Decided on March 24, 2025
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.:— Leave Granted.
2. An application made under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure1 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
2
v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police ” 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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Saturday, August 23, 2025
Printed For: shivika karanwal, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

brings it under Section 90 of the Penal Code, 18603 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
2
Prithivirajan from which 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.”
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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Saturday, August 23, 2025
Printed For: shivika karanwal, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wish. Despite 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 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 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 by the victim, in which case there cannot be any
inducement found, on a promise held out. The allegation of forceful
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Saturday, August 23, 2025
Printed For: shivika karanwal, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
1
For brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’

2
Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12663 of 2022

3
For brevity ‘I.P.C.’

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.