Jothiragawan vs The State Rep by the Inspector of Police (2025) case drew attention due to its implications for understanding the scope of consent under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and applicability of Section 482 CrPC. The decision of Supreme Court to quash the proceedings highlighted concerns over the misuse of rape allegations in consensual relationships where promises of marriage are later retracted. Discover more in-depth analyses of important Supreme Court decisions by exploring Recent Judgements of Supreme Court.

Jothiragawan vs The State Rep by the Inspector of Police (2025) Introduction

In Jothiragawan vs The State Rep by the Inspector of Police (2025) the Supreme Court examined important legal issues regarding consent, coercion and false promises of marriage under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner Jothiragawan in this case sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 of BNSS 2023). The High Court of Madras dismissed his application and prompted him to appeal before the Supreme Court.

Download Jothiragawan vs The State Rep by the Inspector of Police PDF

The case at hand revolves around a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure ( Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras sought to quash criminal proceedings against the accused. The complainant contended that the accused had coerced her into a physical relationship by falsely promising marriage. The High Court dismissed the application. The following are the brief facts of Jothiragawan vs The State Rep by the Inspector of Police -

Application under Section 482 CrPC

The Petitioner Jothiragawan filed a plea under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The Petitioner sought to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him . The High Court rejected the application and prompted the Petitioner to challenge the decision before the Apex Court .

Arguments by the Petitioner

The Petitioner contended that complainant and accused both are adults aged 22 years had engaged in several consensual interactions . According to Jothiragawan, the accused never made a false promise of marriage to induce the complainant into a physical relationship. He argued that the testimony of victim made to the police indicated clear consent rather than coercion.

Arguments by the State

The State argued that there was no justification for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC at this stage . It was contended that victim statement indicated coercion into physical relationship .

Arguments by the Counsel of Victim

The Counsel of victim asserted that the accused had induced the consent of complainant by falsely promising marriage . He argued that such fraudulent inducement fell within the scope of Section 90 of Indian Penal Code as the consent was obtained through misrepresentation and misconception. He argued that the charges of rape and cheating were evident from the unfulfilled promise of marriage.

Observations of the High Court

The High Court observed that both the accused and the complainant were 22 years old and were closely related. It noted that the victim’s complaint clearly indicated that accused had forced her into physical relationship by falsely promising marriage. It also observed that the victim had categorically stated that the accused later refused to marry her. Therefore the High Court dismissed application of Petitioner filed under Section 482 of CrPC.

Appeal in Supreme Court

The Petitioner aggrieved by the decision of the High Court approached the Supreme Court. He challenged the decision of the High Court and contended that the High Court wrongly dismissed the petition and sought quashing of proceedings.

Jothiragawan vs The State Rep by the Inspector of Police (2025) Legal Issues

The following issues were addressed in Jothiragawan vs The State Rep by the Inspector of Police -

Whether the proceedings initiated against the accused under Section 376 IPC could be sustained based on the allegations made by the complainant?

The complainant contended that the accused had coerced her into sexual intercourse through threats and false promises of marriage. The Court examined whether the ingredients of Section 376 were satisfied by the facts presented.

Whether consent was obtained through coercion or under a false promise of marriage?

The Supreme Court in Jothiragawan vs The State Rep by the Inspector of Police analysed whether the alleged sexual acts were consensual or induced by deception or coercion.

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the application filed under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing the proceedings ?

The Appellant contended that the High Court wrongly dismissed the petition and sought quashing of proceedings .

Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has a important role in Jothiragawan vs The State Rep by the Inspector of Police . The following is the analysis of this provision :

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 482 CrPC (Now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023) vests inherent powers in the High Court to make orders necessary to stop the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice .

Jothiragawan vs The State Rep by the Inspector of Police (2025) Judgment and Impact

In Jothiragawan vs The State Rep by the Inspector of Police (2025) the 2-Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran concluded that the criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellant were an abuse of the judicial process. 

The Court examined the testimony of complainant including the First Information Report and subsequent testimony made to the police. The Court noted that the alleged instances of sexual intercourse occurred within a consensual relationship.

The Court found that the victim admitted to accompanying the accused to hotel rooms on three occasions despite claiming to be mentally distressed after each incident. The Court noted that the alleged promise of marriage, if made at all, was given after the first instance of intercourse and was not a factor inducing consent before the act. The allegations of coercion and threats by the accused were found to be inconsistent with the complainant’s conduct of voluntarily meeting the accused multiple times.

On the basis of the above findings, the Supreme Court in Jothiragawan vs The State Rep by the Inspector of Police held that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to a misuse of the legal process. Thus, the appeal was allowed and all pending applications were disposed of.

Conclusion

In Jothiragawan vs The State Rep by the Inspector of Police (2025) the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings. The Court held that the allegations were inconsistent with the conduct of the complainant and amounted to an abuse of judicial process.