No Promise of Marriage Before Sexual Act – Consent Was Not Induced”: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Proceedings as Abuse of Process

 “We have absolutely no doubt that the criminal proceedings against the appellant are nothing but an abuse of the process of the court”

 On 24 March 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Jothiragawan v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police & Anr., quashed criminal proceedings alleging rape and cheating, holding that consensual physical relationship between adults without prior inducement or promise of marriage cannot be prosecuted as rape. The Court ruled that the accusations were inherently contradictory, lacked legal foundation under Section 376 IPC, and allowing the trial to proceed would amount to misuse of judicial process.

 The appellant approached the Supreme Court under Section 482 CrPC, challenging the rejection of a plea by the Madras High Court to quash proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Erode, in S.C. No. 49 of 2022. The complainant had alleged that the appellant engaged in sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage, later refusing to marry her.

 The High Court had declined to interfere, relying on the complainant’s version that the accused forced her into physical intimacy under the pretext of marriage, and held that the truth of the allegations ought to be examined at trial.

Legal Issues and Court’s Observations:

The Supreme Court undertook a close scrutiny of the victim’s statements, including the First Information Report and follow-up police statements, to determine whether the allegations, even if taken at face value, could constitute the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC or fall within Section 90 IPC on vitiated consent due to misrepresentation.

The Court observed:

“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 complainant had stated that she was initially coerced into sex during a hotel stay after feeling dizzy post a movie. Only after the first encounter did the accused allegedly promise marriage.

• “The promise, if any, was after the intercourse… There is not even a statement that she succumbed to the sexual intercourse on such proposal being made.”

In subsequent incidents, the complainant willingly accompanied the accused to hotel rooms multiple times, where she alleged further coercive acts. The Court found this incompatible with the claim of complete lack of consent, especially in light of their voluntary interactions and the fact that they were closely related and in regular contact.

 On Contradictions and Abuse of Legal Process:

The Court noted that the narrative shifted between claims of coercion and false promise, with the allegations of force being inconsistent with the conduct of the complainant, who continued meeting the appellant.

• “If there is consent, there cannot be alleged forceful intercourse and it could only be contended that consent was obtained on misrepresentation or coercion.”

 Critically, the Court noted the absence of any initial inducement or false promise of marriage made with the intent to deceive:

• “There is no promise of marriage to coerce consent from the victim… The relationship admitted by both parties was consensual.”

 Ultimately, the Court held:

“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.”

 Reference to Prithvirajan v. State (2025):

The Court relied on its own precedent set in Prithvirajan v. State, where it had held:

• “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.”

In Jothiragawan, the Court found the facts analogous, with no clear evidence of any fraudulent promise made prior to the relationship.

 Conclusion:

The Supreme Court quashed the prosecution pending before the Sessions Court in S.C. No. 49 of 2022, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, and allowed the appeal.

The ruling significantly clarifies that not all failed relationships or post-breakup accusations involving physical intimacy can be treated as rape, especially in the absence of deceit or inducement at the inception.

Date of Decision: 24 March 2025