Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Prithivirajan vs The State Rep By The Inpector Of Police on 20 January, 2025
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.12663/2022)
PRITHIVIRAJAN APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE REP BY THE INPECTOR
OF POLICE & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State.
The respondent no.2 has not turned up in spite of service of
notice.
3. An FIR bearing Crime No.1/2019 was filed against the
appellant by the respondent police based on a complaint
lodged by the respondent no.2 (prosecutrix) for the offences
punishable under Sections 417, 376 & 506 Part I of the
Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) alleging that the
appellant had established sexual relations with her on the
pretext of marriage.
4. The entire case of the prosecution is that the
appellant is being charged, inter-alia, under Section 376 of
the IPC for the reason that the appellant had given false
Signature Not Verified
promise of marriage to the prosecutrix and thus obtained her
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.01.27
17:29:33 IST
Reason: consent for sexual relationship but later backed out of his
promise, and for that reason it is a case of rape. The logic
given here is that in case there is no consent then it would
2
be rape as defined under section 375 of IPC. In order to
prove that there is no consent usually reliance on section
90 of IPC is also taken.
Section 90 of IPC is as follows:
90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconce
ption— A consent is not such a consent as is
intended by any section of this Code, if
the consent is given by a person under fear of
injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the
person doing the act knows, or has
reason to believe, that the consent was given in
consequence of such fear or misconception; or
Consent of insane person- if the consent is given by
a person who, from unsoundness of
mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the
nature and consequence of that to which he gives
his consent; or
Consent of child— unless the contrary appears from
the context, if the consent is given by a person who
is under twelve years of age.
The prosecution would thus like to prove that because of the
‘misconception’, consent was given and hence it is a case of
rape.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant
argued that this is not a case of rape but of consensual
relationship, and hence deserves to be quashed. In order to
strengthen this submission, he relied upon several cases.
These are:
i. Sonu Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online
SC 181.
ii. Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2020)
10 SCC 108.
iii. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608.
iv. Dr. Dhruvram Murlidhar Sonar VS. State of
Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191.
v. Kaini Raja Vs. State of Kerala, (2013) 9 SCC 113.
vi. Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC
3
675.
vii. K.P. Thimmappa Gowda Vs State of Karnataka,
(2011) 14 SCC 475.
viii. Deelip Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC
88.
ix. Uday Vs State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46.
x. Rahul Sasi Vs State of Kerala, 2021 SCC OnLine
Ker 4370.
6. This Court has time and again reiterated that only
because physical relations were established based on a
promise to marry, it will not amount to rape. For the
offence of rape to be attracted, the following conditions
need to be satisfied: first, the accused promised to marry
the prosecutrix solely to secure consent for sexual
relations without having any intention of fulfilling said
promise from the very beginning; second, that the
prosecutrix gave her consent for sexual relations by being
directly influenced by such false promise of marriage. [See:
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
(2019) 9 SCC 608; Mahesh Damu Khare v. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 347]
7. The instant case is one of consensual relationship
between the appellant and prosecutrix. Even otherwise, it
does not appear from the record that the initial promise to
marry allegedly made by the appellant was false to begin
with. Perusal of FIR itself suggests that the alleged
promise to marry could not be fulfilled by the appellant due
to intervening circumstances. Consequently, the relationship
ended because of which the present FIR came to be
4
registered. Under these circumstances, letting the appellant
face trial would be nothing short of an abuse of the process
of the Court. This cannot be permitted.
8. Hence, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of
the High Court dated 29.06.2022.
9. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings arising out of
FIR bearing Crime No.1/2019 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 417, 376 & 506 Part I of the IPC,
are hereby quashed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
…………… J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
…………… J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
New Delhi;
January 20, 2025.
5
ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 12663/2022
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-06-2022
in CRLOP No. 2408/2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras]
PRITHIVIRAJAN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE REP BY THE INPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 20-01-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv.(NP)
Mr. M.p. Parthiban, AOR
Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv.
Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv.
Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv.
Mr. Alagiri K, Adv.
Mr. P.v.k. Deivendran, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. D.kumanan, AOR
Ms. Deepa S, Adv.
Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Adv.
Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Adv.
Ms. Shagufa Khan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The present appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order,
which is placed on the file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NIRMALA NEGI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR