Latest JudgementIndian Penal Code, 1860Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Jothiragawan v. State, 2025

Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Man Accused of Forcible Sex Under False Promise of Marriage

Supreme Court of India·25 March 2025

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

25 March 2025

Judges

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia ⦁ Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 376, Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)

Facts of the Case

The victim accused the man, Jothiragawan, of coercing her into sexual intercourse under the false promise of marriage.
The victim claimed that after the first incident of sexual intercourse, the accused promised marriage but later refused.
Despite this promise, the victim voluntarily accompanied the accused to a hotel twice more, each time alleging coercion and force during the act.
The accused denied these allegations and stated that there was no fraudulent intention behind his promise of marriage.

Whether a breach of promise to marry automatically constitutes rape under Section 376 of the IPC?
Whether there was coercion or force used by the accused during the sexual acts?
Whether the victim's consent to accompany the accused to the hotel rooms on multiple occasions contradicted her claim of force and coercion?

The Supreme Court quashed the rape charges against the accused, emphasizing that a breach of promise to marry does not automatically equate to rape unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent at the time of consent.
The Court noted that the victim had willingly accompanied the accused to the hotel on multiple occasions, which contradicted her allegations of coercion and force.
The Court further stated that the promise to marry, if made after the first sexual incident, could not be deemed to have been fraudulent or coercive as no evidence was found that the promise was made to deceive the victim from the outset.
The Supreme Court relied on the Prithvirajan v. State case, reiterating that for rape under false promise of marriage, the intent to deceive must be established from the very beginning.

The Court quashed the FIR and the ongoing criminal proceedings against Jothiragawan.
The Court found that the victim’s actions contradicted her allegations, especially her willingness to meet the accused after the alleged forced incidents.
The proceedings before the Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Erode, were deemed to be an abuse of process and, therefore, the case was dismissed.

The Supreme Court's judgment makes it clear that consent obtained through a promise of marriage does not automatically constitute rape, especially when the alleged force or coercion is contradicted by the victim’s willingness to engage in the sexual act.
This case highlights the legal principle that a promise to marry does not alone imply coercion or fraud unless it can be proven that the promise was made with the intent to deceive from the very beginning.
The Court's decision reinforces the importance of evidence and consent in sexual offence cases, particularly those involving claims of false promises of marriage.