Supreme Court Quashes Rape Prosecution Citing Consensual Relationship and Abuse of Process

The Supreme Court granted leave in appeal while considering the appeal preferred against the dismissal of quash petition by High Court of Madras, involving rape allegations. The victim complained that the accused (appellant) lured her into physical relations with a marriage commitment, which was subsequently retracted.

The appellant’s counsel argued before the Supreme Court that multiple interactions between the parties indicated consent and that no promise of marriage was made to induce the complainant into a physical relationship, which was also not evident from the initial complaint to the police. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prithvirajan vs. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police & Another (Click to Download) .

The State’s counsel however, contended that the victim’s statements clearly indicated coercion, necessitating a trial. The counsel for the complainant asserted inducement under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) due to a misrepresented consent based on a false promise of marriage.

The Supreme Cour upon perusal Information, Statements and the subsequent police statement observed that these documents revealed identical accounts. The Court noted the admitted relationship between the parties and the fact that they had engaged in sexual intercourse on three occasions in a hotel.

While the victim initially alleged coercion in the first instance followed by a promise of marriage, the subsequent instances were also described as forceful, with allegations of threats if she refused intercourse. The Court highlighted the victim’s admission of being mentally upset after the first two incidents, yet willingly accompanying the accused to the same hotel again for the third instance.

The Supreme Court found that the statements made by the victim did not convincingly establish that the sexual relationship was without her consent.

The Apex Court observed that there was no indication of a promise of marriage made to coerce consent for the initial sexual intercourse, but the allegations in subsequent instances were primarily of forceful intercourse without consent. On the admitted relationship and the repeated, willing visits to hotel rooms by the complainant, It is observed by the Apex Court that the allegations of threat and coercion were deemed not believable.

Consequently, the Apex Court concluded that the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant were nothing but an abuse of the process of the court, and the High Court should have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Erode.

Coram: Justice SUDHANSHU DHULIA and Justice K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Between: JOTHIRAGAWAN VS STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR 2025 INSC 386
Date of Judgment: 24-03-2025