“Letting the Appellant Face Trial Would Be an Abuse of the Process”: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case, Notes Woman “Willingly Accompanied Accused to Hotel Room Thrice”
Kiran Raj
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against an accused in a rape and cheating case, observing that the materials on record did not disclose any inducement on the promise of marriage prior to the alleged sexual acts. The Court stated that “letting the appellant face trial would be nothing short of an abuse of the process of the Court. This cannot be permitted.”
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered the judgment, allowing the appeal against the Madras High Court’s refusal to quash proceedings initiated under Sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court found that the complaint and statements made by the prosecutrix did not disclose a case of coerced consent based on a false promise of marriage.
The appeal arose from the rejection of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The appellant contended that the allegations did not make out a case of rape as the complaint and subsequent statements disclosed a consensual relationship between two adults, and that no promise of marriage was made to induce consent prior to the alleged acts.
The appellant, represented by learned counsel Mr. M. P. Parthiban, submitted that the accused and complainant were known to each other and were major individuals at the time of the alleged incidents. The complaint, according to the appellant, reflected a consensual relationship and did not disclose a case of inducement through a promise of marriage. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Prithvirajan vs. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police & Another, Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2025, which recorded that where the promise of marriage was not false at the inception, prosecution under Section 376 IPC would not lie.
The State, represented by Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, argued that the matter required a trial as the statements recorded indicated coercion and inducement through a promise of marriage. It was submitted that only after evidence was led could the truth of the allegations be ascertained, and therefore invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not warranted at this stage.
Mr. Vairawan A.S., appearing for the complainant, submitted that the case clearly fell within the ambit of Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, as consent was obtained under a misconception induced by a promise of marriage. He pointed to the complainant’s consistent statements that such a promise was made and later breached, thereby constituting the offences alleged.
The High Court, while dismissing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., had relied upon precedent to conclude that the statements of the complainant supported the charge of rape. It noted that both the accused and the complainant were approximately 22 years of age, were closely related, and that the complainant had stated she was induced to consent by a promise of marriage, which was later not fulfilled.
The Supreme Court examined the complaint and statements made by the complainant to the police, which formed the basis of the charges. It noted that the accused and the complainant met at a family function and entered into a relationship that developed over time.
The Court recorded that the complainant had herself stated that she initially declined a marriage proposal made by the accused, expressing her intent to consider it only after completing her studies. Communication between the two continued over the phone, and they met intermittently.
Describing the events of 17 April 2021, the Court noted the complainant’s account that she accompanied the accused to a movie, after which they went to a hotel. There, the complainant alleged that she was coerced into an “abrupt and unexpected” sexual act. The Court recorded: “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.”
On examining the timing of the promise of marriage, the Court observed that there was no allegation that such a promise was made prior to the act of intercourse. It stated: “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 Court further examined the complainant’s account of two subsequent incidents, both of which allegedly occurred in the same hotel. In both cases, it was alleged that the accused postponed discussions about marriage until after sexual intercourse had taken place, and again coerced the complainant into the act.
However, the Court noted an absence of clear inducement in the form of a promise prior to these acts. It recorded: “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.”
The Court commented that these allegations were mutually destructive, stating that if intercourse occurred by force, there could not simultaneously be consent induced by misrepresentation.
It also examined the complainant’s admission that she continued to visit the hotel with the accused even after claiming mental distress from the prior incidents. The Court recorded: “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.”
Relying on its previous decision in Prithvirajan v The State Represented by the Inspector of Police & Another the Court referred to the extract: “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... letting the appellant face trial would be nothing short of an abuse of the process of the Court.”
After considering the entire factual matrix, the Court found no material indicating that the accused obtained consent through a false promise of marriage. It observed: “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.”
The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and interfered with the proceedings. It therefore directed: “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.”
It allowed the appeal accordingly and disposed of any pending applications.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. M. P. Parthiban, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Advocate for the State; Mr. Vairawan A.S., Advocate for the Complainant
Case Title: Jothiragawan vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 386
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.6821 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
[Read/Download order]
