LexJOTHIRAGAWAN versus STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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 wo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.