Read Time: 15 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court, on March 24, 2025, quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a man for committing rape upon a woman on a false promise of marriage, after finding that there was no inducement by the accused, with a promise of marriage, before the alleged crime that led to the sexual intercourse.

"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," a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said.

The court noted that in all three instances, the allegation was that the intercourse occurred under threat and coercion, and there was no mention of consent by the victim. In such a case, there cannot be any inducement based on a promise.

The court also opined that the allegation of forceful intercourse under threat and coercion was not believable, given the admitted relationship between the parties and the victim’s willing and repeated excursions to hotel rooms.

On reading the statements made by the victim before the police—both the First Information Statement and the one recorded later—the bench said, "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 court noted that the allegation was of threat and coercion against the victim to have sexual intercourse with the accused, which, even as per the victim’s own statement, occurred three times in the same manner, with her willingly accompanying the accused to hotel rooms.

The victim also categorically stated that after the first and second incidents, she was mentally upset, but that did not deter her from accompanying the accused to hotel rooms again, the bench said.

Having heard both sides, the bench said, "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 CrPC."

The court held that the proceedings could not continue and quashed the pending case before a court in Erode, which was based on the woman’s complaint.

As per the victim’s complaint and statement, the couple had sexual intercourse three times. They first met at a family function, where they exchanged phone numbers.

A few days later, the accused expressed his desire to marry the victim. The victim categorically told him that she was still studying and would consider it after completing her education. A relationship then began, involving frequent conversations, exchange of messages over the mobile phone, and occasional visits by the accused to the house of the victim’s grandmother.

On April 17, 2021, at the request of the accused, the victim accompanied him to a movie. Afterward, 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 and against her will.

After the incident, when the victim told the accused that he had ruined her life, he placed his hand on her head and promised to marry her.

From the recorded statements, the bench said, "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 coerced her into sexual intercourse despite her protests. The promise, as stated—if at all—came after the intercourse, the bench pointed out.

Again, on the pretext of discussing marriage, the accused called the victim, and she willingly accompanied him to the same hotel. It was stated that the accused falsified their names in the hotel register. On entering the room, when the victim wanted to talk about marriage, it was her specific statement that the accused refused to talk about it until after intercourse, and thus, again, the victim was coerced into 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," the bench said.

The court also pointed out that it was the categoric statement of the victim that after both instances she was mentally upset, but this did not prevent her from going to the same hotel again, at the accused’s request, for a third time.

The story repeated itself: the talk of marriage was again deferred until after the sexual intercourse, which was allegedly forced. There was also an allegation of threat and coercion prior to the physical relationship. According to the victim, after the three incidents, the accused refused to answer her calls, and when she eventually managed to contact him, he refused to solemnise their relationship through a valid marriage, the bench noted.

In his arguments, the appellant’s counsel submitted that there were multiple interactions between the complainant and the accused, who were both adults, clearly indicating consent on the part of the complainant. He argued that there was never a promise of marriage by the accused to induce the complainant into a physical relationship. This, he said, was also not evident from the victim’s own complaint to the police, whereas consent was evident from the same. Hence, there can be no prosecution for rape based on the complaint.

The state counsel argued that since the victim’s statements clearly indicate that she was coerced into a physical relationship, only a trial could reveal what actually transpired. Therefore, there was no reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC at this stage.

The victim’s counsel asserted that she had specifically alleged inducement on the promise of marriage, which, under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, would amount to consent obtained under misrepresentation and misconception.

In the case, the Madras High Court had found that the victim and the accused were about 22 years old, were close relatives, and that the complaint clearly indicated that the accused obtained forced consent from her by promising to marry her. It had also noted that the victim had categorically stated that the accused later refused to marry her. Whether the accused had duped the victim into sexual intercourse by making a false promise of marriage was a matter for trial, it had said.

Case Title: Jothiragawan Vs State Rep By The Inspector of Police & Anr