JOTHIRAGAWANversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

                  [2025] 3 S.C.R. 951 : 2025 INSC 386

                            Jothiragawan
                                  v.
             State Rep. By The Inspector of Police & Anr.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 1434 of 2025)
                                 24 March 2025
           [Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant-accused
       ought to be quashed.

                                   Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 –
       s.376 – Complainant-victim alleged that she was coerced into
       sexual intercourse by the appellant-accused thrice under false
       promise of marriage – High Court rejected the application filed by
       the appellant u/s.482 holding that he had obtained forced consent
       from the victim by promising to marry her – Interference with:
       Held: Parties were closely related and were admittedly in a
       relationship – The couple had sexual intercourse thrice – Victim
       willingly accompanied the accused to hotel rooms – There was
       no promise of marriage to coerce consent from the victim for
       sexual intercourse – 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 alleged
       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 – Furthermore, 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 – Sexual relationship
       admitted by both the parties was not without the consent of the
       victim – Criminal proceedings against the appellant are an abuse
       of process of the court, quashed. [Paras 8, 11, 13, 14]

                                Case Law Cited
       Prithvirajan v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police &
       Another, Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 12663
       of 2022 – referred to.
* Author
952                                                             [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


                                     List of Acts
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.

                                  List of Keywords
       Promise of marriage; Quashing; Abuse of process of the court;
       Parties closely related; Admitted relationship; Hotel rooms; Physical
       relationship; Forced consent; Misrepresentation; Misconception;
       Rape; Cheating; Fraudulent inducement; Coercion; Sexual
       intercourse; Refused to marry; Sexual relationship admitted; Threat;
       Forceful intercourse; Inherent and extraordinary power.

                                 Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       1434 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2024 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Madras in CRLOP No. 26266 of 2022

                               Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       P. Soma Sundaram, Y. Arunagiri, M.P. Parthiban.
       Advs. for the Respondent:
       Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G., Sabarish Subramanian, Vairawan
       A.S, Ms. Jaswanthi. A, Subash.

                        Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                     Judgment

       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.



1    For brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                           953

       Jothiragawan v. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police & Anr.


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
       & Another2” 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 Code3 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


2    Criminal Appeal No.282 of 2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No.12663 of 2022
3    For brevity ‘I.P.C.’
954                                                          [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       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:
            “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 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
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          955

     Jothiragawan v. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police & Anr.


     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
956                                                        [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       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 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.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey