Supreme Court Quashes Rape Charges Against Husband: Rules Marital Exception Under Section 375 IPC Applies, No Prima Facie Case Made Out, and SIT Report Confirms Victim Consented to Marriage

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing FIR No. 148 of 2022 and all consequential proceedings against the appellant. The Court held that the charge of rape under Section 376 IPC could not be sustained as the appellant and the victim were legally wedded, thereby falling under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, which exempts sexual intercourse between a husband and wife from the definition of rape. The Court emphasized that no prima facie case was made out, and the continued prosecution of the appellant would serve no purpose, especially given the victim and the complainant’s absence despite being served notices.

Facts

1. Lodging of FIR and Initial Allegations
   • FIR No. 148 was registered on 14.06.2022 under Sections 366 (kidnapping to compel marriage), 376 (rape), and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC.
   • The complainant (victim’s cousin) alleged that the victim, who worked at National Insurance Company, had gone missing on 13.06.2022 after leaving her office at 1:30 PM.
   • The complainant suspected that the appellant had abducted her, as he had allegedly been harassing her for some time.
2. Appellant’s Defense: Claim of a Valid Marriage
   • The appellant argued that he and the victim had married each other on 15.06.2022 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies against the wishes of her family.
   • Due to threats from her relatives, the couple approached the High Court for protection of life and liberty (CRWP No. 5913 of 2022).
   • The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted them protection on 21.06.2022.
3. Victim Returns to Parental Home and Files New Allegations
   • On 31.08.2022, the victim returned to her parental home.
   • The appellant, claiming their marriage was legal, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights.
   • The victim then recorded a statement under Section 164 CrPC on 01.09.2022, alleging:
     • The appellant had raped her.
     • The marriage had been forced upon her.
     • The appellant’s mother and brother assisted in the alleged crimes.
4. Police Investigation and SIT Report
   • A Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by senior police officers investigated the case.
   • The SIT’s findings:
     • No evidence of kidnapping or forced marriage.
     • The victim had married the appellant of her own free will.
     • The appellant’s mother and brother were exonerated, as no role could be attributed to them.
     • Section 366 IPC (kidnapping) was dropped, leaving only Sections 376 and 506 IPC against the appellant.
5. High Court’s Refusal to Quash FIR
   • The appellant moved the Punjab & Haryana High Court (CRM-M-No. 41161 of 2023) on 18.08.2023, seeking to quash the FIR.
   • The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that:
     • The matter required trial for proper evaluation of evidence.
     • The case could not be quashed at the investigation stage.
   • The appellant challenged this order in the Supreme Court.
6. Absence of Victim and Complainant in Supreme Court Proceedings
   • Despite being served notice, neither the complainant nor the victim appeared before the Supreme Court.
   • The Court noted this absence, suggesting that the case lacked active prosecution or interest from the complainant.

Issues

1. Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 376 and 506 IPC were legally sustainable?
2. Whether the marital exception under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC applied in this case?
3. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the FIR despite the SIT exonerating the appellant’s family and the victim’s silence on rape allegations in related proceedings?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC: No Rape Between Husband and Wife
   • Section 375 IPC defines rape, but Exception 2 excludes marital intercourse from the definition of rape.
   • Since the victim was his legally wedded wife, no offence under Section 376 IPC was made out against him.
2. Contradictions in Victim’s Statements
   • The victim never alleged rape in her written statement dated 01.08.2023 in the restitution of conjugal rights case.
   • Her earlier plea before the High Court (seeking protection) confirmed her consent to the marriage.
3. SIT Findings Support Appellant’s Claim
   • The SIT found no evidence of kidnapping or coercion.
   • The victim married him willingly, contradicting her later statement under Section 164 CrPC.
4. Lack of Interest by Complainant and Victim
   • Despite being served notice, neither appeared in court, suggesting that the case had no prosecutorial momentum.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Victim’s Statement Under Section 164 CrPC Alleged Rape
   • The victim stated that the marriage was forced and that the appellant raped her, making it a fit case for trial.
2. High Court Rightly Refused to Quash FIR
   • The matter required evidence evaluation, and the trial court was the appropriate forum for determination.

Analysis of the Law

Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC

• The provision excludes sexual intercourse by a man with his legally wedded wife from the definition of rape.
• Since the appellant was legally married to the victim, he was protected under this exception.

Importance of Consistency in Victim’s Statements

• The victim’s earlier petition for protection contradicted her later claim of forced marriage.
• Her reply in the restitution case omitted allegations of rape, weakening the case against the appellant.

SIT Investigation and Its Role in Quashing FIR

• The SIT found no evidence supporting the victim’s claims.
• The deletion of Section 366 IPC and exoneration of the appellant’s family members further weakened the prosecution’s case.

Precedent Analysis

• The Court relied on previous rulings where FIRs were quashed if the allegations were unsubstantiated or legally unsustainable.
• Cases upholding marital immunity under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC were cited to support quashing the FIR.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Marital Exception Applied: Section 376 IPC Cannot Be Invoked
   • The appellant was legally married to the victim.
   • Under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, rape charges could not be sustained.
2. SIT Findings Contradict Victim’s Allegations
   • The victim voluntarily married the appellant, as confirmed by police investigations.
3. Lack of Interest by Complainant and Victim
   • Their absence in court proceedings suggested that the case had lost prosecutorial interest.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed FIR No. 148 of 2022 and all consequential proceedings.
• The appellant was granted full relief, as no prima facie case was made out.
• Pending applications were disposed of.

Implications

1. Clarifies Marital Exception Under Section 375 IPC
   • Reinforces that marital rape (except in certain situations) is not a punishable offence under IPC.
2. Precedent for FIR Quashing Based on Investigation Reports
   • If SIT reports negate the victim’s claims, courts may quash FIRs without trial.
3. Importance of Victim’s Consistency in Statements
   • Courts scrutinize contradictory statements to determine the credibility of allegations.

This ruling strengthens legal clarity on the marital exception and reinforces due process in criminal proceedings.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 73AAA of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; Rejects Challenge to Restriction on Number of Directors in Tribal Development Corporation