Jothiragawan v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police
Background
A woman alleged that the appellant, with whom she was in a relationship, had sexual intercourse with her on three occasions under coercion, and that he later refused to marry her despite an earlier promise. The Madras High Court declined to quash the resulting rape and cheating case under Section 482 CrPC, holding it was a matter for trial. The appellant argued the interactions were consensual between two adults and that there was no promise of marriage made to induce the relationship.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings, finding the complainant's own statements were mutually contradictory - she alleged both a consensual, ongoing relationship (with repeated voluntary visits to the same hotel) and forced intercourse each time, which cannot logically coexist. Relying on its recent decision in Prithvirajan v. State, the Court held that any promise of marriage referred to by the complainant came only after the first instance of intercourse, not as an inducement beforehand, so the ingredients of "consent obtained by a false promise of marriage" under Section 90 IPC were not made out even prima facie. Continuing the prosecution on these facts, the Court held, would amount to an abuse of the process of court.
Lesson Learnt
For a "false promise of marriage" to vitiate consent under the law, the promise must be shown to have induced the relationship from the outset - a promise made only after intimacy has already occurred, in a relationship marked by repeated voluntary contact, will not sustain a rape charge on that basis.