Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings, Finds Abuse Of Process In Alleged Promise‑to‑Marry Sexual‑offence Case

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by Jothiragawan against the Madras High Court's refusal to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The appeal challenged the High Court's dismissal of an application to quash criminal proceedings arising out of allegations that the appellant induced a woman into a sexual relationship by promising marriage and thereafter refused to marry her.

The Court allowed the appeal, held that the prosecution amounted to an abuse of the process of the court and directed quashment of the criminal proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Erode in S.C. No. 49 of 2022. The bench found that the material on record did not disclose the ingredients of an offence under Section 376 IPC by way of inducement through a pre‑existing promise to marry, and that the complainant’s own statements contained mutually destructive and inconsistent contentions about consent, coercion and inducement. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Having heard both sides in this case, 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 also recorded that "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."

Background

The dispute arose from a complaint alleging that the appellant and the complainant, both adults aged about 22 and close relatives, had engaged in sexual intercourse on three occasions after meetings and messages. The complainant alleged that on the first occasion she was “abruptly and unexpectedly” sexually assaulted in a hotel, after which the appellant placed his hand on her head and promised to marry her; subsequent meetings were said to have occurred on the pretext of discussing marriage but resulted in further alleged forcible intercourse and threats. The appellant maintained that the encounters were consensual and denied making a promise to marry to induce sexual relations.

The Sessions Judge had held that whether the accused had duped the victim by promising marriage was a matter for trial. The Madras High Court rejected the Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition and relied on precedent, including this Court’s recent decision in Prithvirajan, which had observed that where the record suggested that an alleged promise to marry could not be fulfilled due to intervening circumstances, allowing trial might be "nothing short of an abuse of the process of the Court." On scrutiny of the First Information Statement and subsequent statements to police, the Supreme Court found that the complainant’s statements did not reveal inducement by a pre‑existing false promise of marriage and that allegations of force and consent were internally inconsistent given repeated, willing attendance at hotel meetings. The Court therefore concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings lacked merit and amounted to an abuse of process. The appeal was allowed and the proceedings in S.C. No. 49 of 2022 were quashed. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 386 Case Title: Jothiragawan v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M. P. Parthiban, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Standing Counsel for the State; Mr. Vairawan A.S., Advocate for the complainant