'Woman Willingly Accompanied Accused To Hotel Room Thrice' : Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Man

Reiterating that a breach of a promise to marry does not automatically amount to rape unless fraudulent intent existed at the time of consent, the Supreme Court on Monday (March 24) quashed a rape case against a man accused of forcible sex under the pretext of marriage.

The Court noted that the woman had accompanied the accused to a hotel room thrice, and there was no evidence of deception at the time of consent leading to an inference that there was a breach of promise to marry.

“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.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed the accused petition against the Madras High Court's decision refusing to quash the FIR registered against him under Sections 376 and 420 IPC.

The victim alleged that the accused coerced her into sexual intercourse on three occasions under the false promise of marriage.

She claimed that after the first incident (where intercourse was allegedly forced), the accused promised marriage, but later refused.

She accompanied him to a hotel twice more, each time alleging coercion despite her protests.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran found that the victim willingly accompanied the accused to the hotel three times, despite claiming distress after each incident. The Court found this behavior contrary to the allegation of force.

“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 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.”, the Court observed.

Reference was drawn to the recent case of Prithvirajan vs. The State where the Court held that for an offence of rape to be attracted, the following conditions need to be satisfied i.e., first, the accused promised to marry the prosecutrix solely to secure consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling a said promise from the very beginning; second, that the prosecutrix gave her consent for sexual relations by being directly influenced by such false promise of marriage.

Since the aforesaid conditions were not fulfilled in the present case, the Court dismissed the victim's allegations that the Appellant committed a rape of her on false promise of marriage. The Court found that the prosecution/complainant failed to prove that the appellant built the sexual relationship without having the intent to marry her.

“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.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Case Title: JOTHIRAGAWAN VERSUS STATE

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearances:

Mr. M. P. Parthiban, Counsel for the petitioner,

Mr. Sabarish Subramanian,  Counsel for the State

Mr. Vairawan A.S. Counsel for the complainant.

Related: If Consent Of Woman Was Based On False Promise Of Marriage From Inception, Offence Of Rape Is Made Out : Supreme Court

For Offence Of Rape On False Promise To Marry, Physical Relationship Must Be Shown To Be Only Based On Marriage Promise : Supreme Court

'Worrying Trend': Supreme Court Expresses Concerns At Using Criminal Law Against Men After Breakup Of Consensual Relationship