Supreme Court Asks Tamil Director-Politician Seeman To Apologise To Complainant To Quash 'Rape On False Marriage Promise' Case

The Supreme Court on Friday suggested that Tamil film director and politician Seeman tender an apology in the 2011 rape-on-false-promise-of-marriage case against him filed against him by an actress.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan told Seeman that it would consider quashing the FIR if he tendered an apology to the complainant for making objectionable comments against her.

Justice Nagarathna said, “She is the lady. Let the man apologise, bring an end to it.”

The bench added, “In your counter you say that you will not trouble her in future. You will withdraw all allegations, you will apologise and on all those conditions, your affidavit if we consider it, we may quash the complaint.”

The Court was hearing Seeman's plea against the Madras High Court judgment that had refused to quash the case against him and directed police to complete the investigation and file a final report.

The actress has alleged that she was in a relationship with Seeman from 2007-08 till 2011 which was based on a false promise to marry, as Seeman married someone else. Seeman is booked under Sections 417, 420, 354, 376, 506(1) of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

During the hearing today, the bench asked both sides why they wanted to continue the litigation. Justice Nagarathna repeatedly suggested that Seeman could file an affidavit withdrawing allegations, apologising and undertaking not to trouble the complainant.

“Let him withdraw all allegations. You also withdraw all allegations”, she said.

In March 2025, the Supreme Court had granted an interim stay on the High Court order “in order to explore the possibility of a settlement between the parties”.

Today, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat for the complainant told the Court that Seeman had publicly denied any possibility of settlement on the same day he got interim protection.

Farasat told the Court that the complainant had left Tamil Nadu due to threats and had been living in Bengaluru for the last 10 years, as Seeman had a reasonably powerful political party (Naam Tamilar Katchi) in Tamil Nadu. He opposed settlement, saying Seeman had publicly called her a sex worker.

Justice Nagarathna said, “He will withdraw all those allegations, give apology, undertaking everything. We will make him do that.”

Seeman's counsel said that the complainant has abused his client throughout in various interviews and sought time to file a rejoinder. “They have abused us throughout the time and now they are asking apology. How can we come out with that? Let me take instructions, we will proceed accordingly.”

Justice Nagarathna said, “See, you are not small children, you know what you have done to each other. Please get out of all this and lead your independent lives. Why do you want litigation?”

Farasat laid out the complainant's allegations against Seeman, “There was a ceremony also but he did not put a Mangal sutra on me because he knew consciously that he did not want to marry me. After that, he marries somebody else, he has sexually used me for a long period of time, emotionally exploited me and therefore that is the FIR against him and his henchmen.”

Justice Mahadevan questioned the complainant's past public statements praising Seeman. “You gave an interview, you gave an interview in the media praising this person. Now you are saying something against him”, he said.

Ultimately, the Court adjourned the matter, allowing lawyers from both sides to take instruction from their clients on whether they are willing to end the matter.

“On the request made by the petitioner's counsel, list on 24th September. Interim order is extended only till the next date of hearing”, the Court ordered.

Justice Nagarathna warned that Seeman doesn't tender an apology, the Court would dismiss his quashing petition.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 3287/2025

Case Title – Seeman v. State

Appearances: Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat with Jatin Bhardwaj (AOR) (for actress opposing the petition)