Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court in Jothiragawan v. State [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 347] reiterated that a breach of a promise to marry does not automatically amount to rape unless fraudulent intent existed at the time of obtaining consent. The case involved an appeal against the Madras High Court’s refusal to quash an FIR registered under Sections 376 and 420 IPC. The complainant alleged that the accused coerced her into sexual intercourse on three occasions under the false pretext of marriage. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran examined the circumstances and concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the accused induced consent solely based on a false promise of marriage. The Court found that the complainant had willingly accompanied the accused to a hotel room multiple times, and her actions were inconsistent with claims of coercion. Citing precedents, the Court held that for an offence of rape based on false promise to marry, it must be shown that the promise was made from inception solely to obtain consent for sexual relations. Finding no such inducement, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and held that the case was an abuse of the legal process.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, represented by Advocate M. P. Parthiban, contended that the relationship between the complainant and the accused was consensual and there was no fraudulent intent from the beginning to deceive her into sexual relations under false promises of marriage. He argued that the complainant had admitted to willingly accompanying the accused to a hotel room on multiple occasions and that her claims of coercion were contradictory. It was emphasized that the law does not criminalize consensual relationships that later fail to culminate in marriage unless the consent was vitiated by an intentional false promise from inception. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Prithvirajan v. State, which clarified that for rape on the false promise of marriage, it must be proven that the accused never intended to marry from the outset. The State, represented by Advocate Sabarish Subramanian, argued that the complainant’s statements indicated coercion and deception. It was submitted that the accused had led the complainant to believe he would marry her, and despite her distress after the first incident, he continued to pressure her into further sexual relations. The complainant, represented by Advocate Vairawan A.S., maintained that her consent was not free but obtained under undue influence and psychological manipulation.

Judgement:

The Court analyzed the complainant’s statements and found that she willingly accompanied the accused to a hotel room multiple times, contradicting her allegations of coercion. The judgment authored by Justice K. Vinod Chandran noted that for an offence of rape based on a false promise of marriage, the accused must have had fraudulent intent from the very beginning to deceive the complainant into giving consent. In this case, there was no evidence to support such an allegation. The Court observed that the complainant continued meeting the accused despite her claims of distress, which negated the possibility of coercion. It was emphasized that consent obtained under a mere breach of a later promise does not amount to rape. Referring to past rulings, the Court reiterated that an allegation of forceful intercourse must be substantiated by clear evidence, which was lacking in this case. The Court also underscored the need to prevent misuse of criminal law in cases where relationships turn sour, cautioning against the trend of using criminal proceedings as a means of retaliation after the breakdown of a consensual relationship. The Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashed the FIR and the pending proceedings before the Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Erode, in S.C. No. 49 of 2022. The Court held that continuing the case would be an abuse of the judicial process, and accordingly, the appeal was allowed.