Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case: Examining Consent and the Promise of Marriage

 

Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case: Examining Consent and the Promise of Marriage

Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Jothiragawan v. State, rendered a significant judgment emphasizing the distinction between a consensual relationship and an allegation of rape based on a purported breach of a promise to marry. The bench, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, allowed the appeal against the Madras High Court's refusal to quash the FIR registered under Sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Case

The case arose from allegations made by the complainant, wherein she contended that the appellant had engaged in sexual intercourse with her on three occasions under the false pretext of marriage. She claimed that the accused initially forced himself upon her and subsequently assured her of marriage, which he later refused. The complainant further alleged coercion in subsequent encounters, arguing that she was induced into a physical relationship due to the accused’s deceptive assurances.

Observations by the Supreme Court

The Court, while scrutinizing the statements recorded during the investigation, found inconsistencies in the complainant's claims. It was noted that the complainant, despite asserting distress following each alleged incident, continued to voluntarily accompany the accused to a hotel room on multiple occasions. The Court emphasized the principle that consent, once given freely and voluntarily, cannot later be retracted on the mere basis of an unfulfilled promise of marriage unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent at the outset.

The judgment referred to the precedent set in Prithvirajan v. State, wherein the Court had held that for an allegation of rape based on a false promise of marriage to be sustained, two conditions must be satisfied:

1. The accused must have made the promise solely to obtain consent for sexual relations, without any genuine intent to marry.
2. The prosecutrix must have consented to sexual relations solely because of this false promise.

In the present case, the Court found that these conditions were not met, as the complainant had admitted to continuing the relationship and willingly accompanying the accused multiple times despite her prior experiences.

Legal Interpretation and Rationale

The Supreme Court observed that the complainant’s repeated willingness to meet the accused and engage in physical relations negated the claim of force or coercion. It was reiterated that consent obtained through deception must be assessed on the basis of contemporaneous intent and the circumstances surrounding the promise of marriage. The Court ruled that since there was no material evidence indicating that the accused had no intention to marry the complainant at the time of their initial interaction, the allegations under Section 376 IPC could not be sustained.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that invoking criminal proceedings in cases where consent was explicit and voluntary amounts to an abuse of legal process. The inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was deemed applicable to quash the proceedings, as the allegations failed to constitute a cognizable offense.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the necessity of distinguishing between consensual relationships and those involving coercion or deceit. The verdict serves as a crucial precedent in cases involving allegations of sexual offenses based on an unfulfilled promise of marriage. By quashing the FIR, the Court reaffirmed the principle that criminal law should not be weaponized to settle personal grievances where no prosecutable offense exists. This judgment thus reinforces the jurisprudence surrounding consent, intent, and the applicability of criminal sanctions in matters of personal relationships.

Case Citation

Jothiragawan v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 347, 2025 INSC 386

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult qualified legal professionals for specific legal concerns.