Madras High Court
Abdul Riyazudeen vs The Inspector Of Police on 19 November, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.73 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.No.73 of 2018
Abdul Riyazudeen ... Appellant
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
W16 All Women Police Station,
Pulianthope, Chennai – 600 012. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to set aside
the order of conviction passed in S.C.No.52 of 2015 dated 22.01.2018 on
the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Chennai.
For Appellant : Ms.Asni.J.L.
For Mr.K.Suthan
For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Assisted by Ms.Harshana.T
Page No.1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
Crl.A.No.73 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The appellant/accused in S.C.No.52 of 2015 convicted by the Trial
Court by judgment dated 22.01.2018 for the offence under Section 417 IPC
and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment.
Aggrieved against the same, the appellant preferred the present appeal.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/PW1
and the appellant both studying in Tamil Nadu Institute of Labour Studies
from 2011 till 2014, at that time, they developed friendship which
blossomed into a love affair, both were in the habit of visiting Park, Beach,
Railway Stations and other places. Their relationship further developed, the
appellant took the defacto complainant to his house at Viruthachalam for
Ramzan where she stayed for two days, at that time, the appellant promised
the defacto complainant/victim to marry her and had physical relationship.
Thereafter, the defacto complainant took the appellant to her house at
Pulianthope and stayed there for two days and there also, they had physical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
relationship. During the final year, the appellant was staying in the victim's
parents house at Veppampattu in Thiruvallur District and they were
commuting to the College regularly. They both had physical relationship
regularly when they were alone. The victim was initially hesitant to have
any love relationship and physical relationship. The appellant convinced her
stating that his father is a Muslim and mother a Hindu, both of them married
and they are living happily and there will not any objection from his family
side. The victim was staying in Pulianthope along with her brother and
attending college, her grandmother was residing nearby. The parents of the
victim staying at Veppampattu and victim used to visit her parents during
the weekends. During her stay in Pulianthope, she was alone and the
appellant used to visit her in Pulianthope and they were in a close
relationship. On one of the day, when the victim's father had come to
Pulianthope, he found the victim and the appellant together and questioned
them. Initially, both not revealed their relationship. Thereafter, the victim's
father informed his son/PW5 to enquire and PW5 enquired with his
sister/victim, who disclosed the love affair, which was informed to
PW2/mother and PW4/father. Thereafter, PW2, PW4, PW5 and their family
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
friend viz., PW6, went to the appellant's house at Viruthachalam, informed
the love affair to the appellant's parents. Initially, the parents of the
appellant resisted, but later agreed for the marriage and informed that the
marriage can be performed only after five to eight years after the appellant
returns back from his employment in Middle East. The parents of the
victims asked for an written undertaking, which was refused and thereafter,
there was commotion and they left the place. The victim lodged a complaint
with the respondent police, who initially registered C.S.R.No.118 of 2014
dated 22.05.2014. The appellant and his family were called for enquiry and
for two months, conciliation talks went on. Finally, finding that the
appellant and his family members were only buying time in a deceitful
manner to cheat the defacto complainant, FIR/Ex.P8 registered in Crime
No.5 of 2014 for the offence under Sections 376, 417 r/w. 109 IPC. PW10
took up the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared
observation mahazar/Ex.P2, rough sketch/Ex.P9, produced the victim for
medical examination. PW8 is the Doctor who examined the victim recorded
Accident Register/Ex.P4 on 04.07.2014 and gave her opinion confirming
that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse. The appellant obtained
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
anticipatory bail. He was produced for medical examination. PW9/Doctor
examined the appellant and gave Potency report/Ex.P7. On concluding of
investigation, charge sheet filed against the appellant/A1 and his parents/A2
and A3. During trial, PW1 to PW10 examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 marked and
MO1 produced on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence,
DMO1 to DMO5 marked. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court acquitted
A2 and A3, but convicted the appellant as stated above.
3.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the
appellant and PW1 were studying degree course in Tamil Nadu Institute of
Labour Studies during 2011-2014, at that time, they developed friendship
which subsequently blossomed into a love affair. The appellant was in
relationship with PW1 as classmate and they had close relationship. It was
the victim who voluntarily came to the house of the appellant during
Ramzan in the year 2012 and stayed there. The victim was staying along
with her brother in Pulianthope near her grandmother's house, her parents
were staying in Veppampattu, Thiruvallur District the appellant used to visit
the victim at Pulianthope and used to do combined studies. On one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
occasion there was a small fight, the appellant was heart broken, consumed
poison and later he survived that was the intensity of love, further their
bondage thickened. The appellant and the victim both educated, in their
early teens, developed close relationship, admitted by the victim, the
relationship was mutual and not a forced one. It is not the case that the
victim not knowing the consequences continued her physical relationship
with the appellant. Even before the Doctor/PW8, victim informed her
continuous physical relationship with the appellant from the year 2012 to
2014 which is recorded in Accident Register/Ex.P4. PW8/Doctor had given
a report that there is no evidence of any external injuries confirming that
even the physical relationship was mutual and not by force. Both parents
were aware about the love affair between the appellant and the victim and
both the families shown no resistance, which embolden them and they
continued their relationship. MO1 and DMO1 to DMO5 are the
photographs taken during the College farewell day function and the victim
took photographs with the appellant as well her classmates. The parents of
the victim insisted for immediate marriage, the plans of appellant and his
family members were otherwise. They wanted the appellant to get
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
employed in Middle East, make some good earnings for few years and
thereafter come back and have his marriage, and they sought five years time
which was not agreeable and there was some misunderstanding in this
regard. This misunderstanding manifested, blown out of proportion and
projected as though it is a case of rape.
4.The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even
the parents of the appellant arrayed as accused in this case but the Trial
Court acquitted them. The main charge against the appellant is for the
offence under Sections 376 and 506(ii) IPC but the appellant was acquitted
from these charges and convicted only for the offence under Section 417
IPC. This conviction is not sustainable for the reason, at the time of
inception of appellant's relationship with victim there was no false promise.
Even on the day when the victim and her family members during May 2014
when they had come seeking for marriage, the request of the appellant's
family is that marriage can be deferred for some more time, till the appellant
get settled. It was only to deference of marriage for a later period and the
appellant not refused to marry the victim. But in a haste and in a knee jerk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
reaction, complaint lodged. PW2 and PW4 are the father and mother and
PW5 brother of the victim/PW1. PW6, a family friend and PW7, a friend of
PW4, all confirm the close relationship between appellant and victim as
classmates. The appellant and the victim were seen together in many places.
It is not the case that the appellant refused to marry the victim. Further, the
Doctor/PW8 confirm the long relationship between the appellant and the
victim as disclosed by the victim. The Trial Court having acquitted the
parents of the appellant from all charges and acquitted the appellant from
major charges on the same set of evidence wrongly construed that the
appellant refused to marry, hence convicted him under Section 417 IPC. In
this case, there is no deception to attract section 450 and the appellant
requested for some time to get settle down in his life. Hence, the conviction
of the appellant not sustainable.
5.In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the decision in the case of Guluk Kathar vs. State of Assam
and another reported in 2025 SCC Online Gau 186, wherein the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Promod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
Maharashtra reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 referred and the Apex Court
held that promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad
faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given and
such false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or it must bear a
direct nexus to the women's decision to engage in the sexual act.
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appellant's
contention and submitted that in this case, the victim/PW1 lodged a
complaint against the appellant complaining that the appellant forced a love
affair with the victim and further on a false promise, had physical
relationship with the defacto complainant during the entire college days
from 2011 to 2014 had physical relationship on the promise of marriage not
once in one place but on several occasions at several places in
Viruthachalam, Pulianthope and Veppampattu. The victim had
apprehension about the inter-religious marriage, the appellant promised that
his father is a Muslim and the mother is a Hindu and it would not be a
problem in his family on such promise and assurance given by the appellant
not only to the victim even to the parents of the victim viz., PW2 and PW4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
and his brother/PW5. The appellant and the victim were classmates and
college mates throughout the course, they were together and had physical
relationship whenever possible. After completion of the course in the year
2014, the appellant started to neglect and not responded to the phone calls
of the victim and completely kept away. The victim along with her parents,
brother and father's friend went to the appellant's house and requested for
the marriage. The appellant and his family members initially refused the
marriage, later they agreed for the marriage but tactfully insisted for a
condition to buy time for five years as though appellant is to get employed
in Middle East, enquiry revealed there was no such initiative taken, thus
from the inception the appellant not committed to marry the victim, for this
reason such condition of five years period insisted. The appellant having
used the victim for four long years, later showed no interest in marriage.
Even the Investigating Officer, on receipt of the complaint during the month
of May 2014, not immediately registered the complaint only CSR assigned
to find out whether there could be any reconciliation and thereafter only in
July FIR registered, finding appellant and his family members deliberately
avoiding the marriage. The victim in no uncertain terms disclosed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
intense relationship between the appellant and the victim even to the
Doctor/PW8 which is recorded in the Accident Register/Ex.P4. The
appellant used the victim and now refused to marry, but the Trial Court on
the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4, and PW8 had rightly convicted the
appellant.
7.Considering the submissions and perusal of the materials, it is seen
that in this case, the appellant and the victim both classmates for three years
from 2011 to 2014, they were together, moving closely in te college and
outside and victim voluntarily came to appellant's house at Viruthachalam
and stayed there, thereafter appellant was entertained by the victim to visit
her house at Pulianthope and Veppammattu. The appellant and the victim
visited various places many times together. Though the victim initially had
apprehension of marriage, the appellant promised that his parents belonged
to different religions, had love marriage and they are living happily. Hence,
there will not be any resistance for their marriage and gained confidence of
the victim and both had physical relationship many times at various places.
The love relationship between the appellant and the victim known to both
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
families. PW2, PW4, PW5, PW6, and PW7 are the parents, brother and
family friends of the victim, all confirmed appellant and victim love affair
and seen together in various places. The appellant and the victim both
educated, studying a degree course together throughout the course period
they were together, developed love relationship and had physical
relationship throughout this period which is voluntary. The victim disclosed
the continuous physical relationship to PW8/Doctor confirming that the
victim and the appellant had physical relationship with consent. The
appellant and his family members not refused for the marriage, they insisted
marriage can be performed after five years for the reason that the appellant
intended to get employment in Middle East and after making good earnings,
thereafter to have his marriage which is a normal expectation of any parent
and cannot be faulted with. The victim and her family members were
insisting on immediate marriage and a written commitment. The
compulsion of getting a written undertaking might have been refused for
various reasons even hurting the appellant and the family members of their
genuine requests suspecting their integrity and hurting their pride and
esteem. The Trial Court found the relationship between the appellant and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
victim was with consent and victim knowing the consequences had
continuous relationship with the appellant and hence acquitted the appellant
for the charge under sections 376 IPC. As stated above, with regard to the
marriage proposal, it was not a refusal, appellant and his parents requested
some time. Seeking time cannot be attributed to be a deceitful act termed as
false promise and cheating. What is discernible from the above facts of the
case is the relationship between the appellant and the victim have been
continuous for more than four years and there cannot be misconception for
such long period. It is settled proposition of law that mere refusal to marry
would not constitute offence under Section 417 IPC until and unless the
requirement under Section 90 IPC is established by the prosecution. In this
case, the prosecution failed to established any of the ingredients. The
appellant's conviction under Section 417 IPC is not proper. In view of the
above, this Court is inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence
imposed by the Trial Court.
8.In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed setting aside the
judgment dated 22.01.2018 in S.C.No.52 of 2015 passed by the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai. The appellant is acquitted from all
charges. Bail bond if any executed shall stand cancelled. Fine amount if any
paid shall be refunded.
19.11.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
W16 All Women Police Station,
Pulianthope,
Chennai – 600 012.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
19.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:44:11 pm )
