Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR Against Husband, Holds That Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC Applies in Legally Recognized Marriages and SIT Report Corroborates Voluntary Marriage

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed FIR No. 148 of 2022, which had been registered against the appellant under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court held that:

1. The appellant was legally married to the victim, which meant that Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC (which exempts husbands from rape charges in a legally recognized marriage) applied.
2. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) report had already discarded allegations of abduction and confirmed that the victim had married the appellant of her own free will.
3. The victim and complainant did not appear before the Court, despite proper notice, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the case.
4. The High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR was erroneous because the allegations of rape were not supported by consistent evidence.

Thus, the Supreme Court set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order dated August 22, 2023, and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

Facts

1. Original Allegations (FIR Registration): The case began when FIR No. 148 of 2022 was lodged on June 14, 2022, under Section 366 IPC (kidnapping, abduction, or inducing a woman to compel her marriage), Section 376 IPC (rape), and Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation).
   • The complainant (victim’s cousin) alleged that on June 13, 2022, the victim left her office and did not return home.
   • The complainant feared that she had been abducted by the appellant, who had allegedly been harassing her for some time.
2. Appellant’s Defense (Marriage Claim):
   • The appellant contended that he had legally married the victim on June 15, 2022, as per Sikh rites, against the wishes of her family.
   • The couple filed a protection petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court on June 16, 2022, seeking safety from family members of the victim.
   • The High Court granted protection on June 21, 2022.
3. Victim’s Return to Parental Home & Rape Allegations:
   • On August 31, 2022, the victim returned to her parental home.
   • On September 1, 2022, she recorded a statement under Section 164 CrPC, alleging that:
     • The appellant forcibly married her.
     • He raped her.
     • His mother and brother assisted him in committing these offenses.
   • Based on this new statement, Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) IPC were added to the FIR, and the appellant’s mother and brother were also named as accused.
4. SIT Investigation and Chargesheet:
   • A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted to probe the case.
   • The SIT filed a chargesheet on July 1, 2023, concluding that:
     • The kidnapping and forced marriage allegations were false.
     • The victim had willingly married the appellant.
     • The appellant’s mother and brother had no role in the alleged offenses and were exonerated.
     • Section 366 IPC (kidnapping) was dropped, but Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) remained.
5. High Court’s Refusal to Quash FIR:
   • The appellant filed a quashing petition (CRM-M-No. 41161 of 2023) on August 18, 2023, before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
   • The High Court dismissed the petition on August 22, 2023, holding that:
     • The matter involved serious allegations that required trial proceedings.
     • The appellant should defend himself during the trial rather than seeking quashing at this stage.
6. Supreme Court Proceedings:
   • The appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that:
     • As the legally wedded husband, he could not be prosecuted under Section 376 IPC due to Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC.
     • The victim had filed a written statement on August 1, 2023, in a restitution of conjugal rights case, in which she did not allege rape or forced marriage.
     • The victim and complainant did not appear in the Supreme Court, despite proper notice.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant could be prosecuted for rape under Section 376 IPC, given that he was legally married to the victim.
2. Whether the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC had sufficient evidentiary value to sustain criminal proceedings.
3. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the quashing petition despite contradictions in the victim’s statements.
4. Whether the SIT report and absence of the complainant and victim from the proceedings indicated a case fit for quashing.

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Legally Wedded Husband:
   • The appellant argued that since he was lawfully married to the victim, his prosecution for rape (Section 376 IPC) was barred under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC.
2. Contradictory Statements by Victim:
   • The victim had never alleged rape in her reply to the restitution of conjugal rights petition filed by the appellant.
   • She had sought police protection for herself and the appellant, showing she was not coerced into marriage.
3. SIT Report Exoneration:
   • The SIT clearly concluded that the victim had married voluntarily.
   • There was no evidence to support the kidnapping and forced marriage allegations.
4. Failure to Prosecute the Case:
   • Neither the victim nor the complainant appeared before the Supreme Court, showing lack of interest in pursuing the case.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Trial Required for Serious Offense:
   • The State argued that rape is a serious offense and the matter should be decided by the trial court.
2. Victim’s Statement Under Section 164 CrPC:
   • The State claimed that the victim’s statement before the magistrate was sufficient to proceed with the trial.
3. High Court’s Correct Approach:
   • The Punjab & Haryana High Court was right in dismissing the quashing petition, as the case involved factual disputes requiring evidence evaluation.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC Clearly Applies:
   • A legally wedded husband cannot be prosecuted for rape unless the wife is under 18 years.
   • Since the victim admitted marriage, the charge was unsustainable.
2. SIT Report Corroborates Innocence:
   • The SIT investigation found no evidence to support kidnapping or forced marriage.
   • The victim had married the appellant of her own free will.
3. Contradictions in the Victim’s Conduct:
   • The victim had previously sought protection for herself and the appellant.
   • In her reply to the restitution of conjugal rights case, she did not allege rape.
4. Failure to Appear Before the Supreme Court:
   • The victim and complainant’s absence suggested that the allegations were baseless and lacked prosecutorial interest.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings, holding that:

1. The rape charges were legally unsustainable.
2. The victim’s contradictions and SIT report findings warranted quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
3. The High Court erred in dismissing the quashing petition.

Implications

• Reinforces Marital Rape Exception: Strengthens the position that husbands cannot be prosecuted under Section 376 IPC in a valid marriage.
• Prevents False Allegations: Protects against frivolous FIRs in matrimonial disputes.
• Raises Standard for Quashing Rape FIRs: Courts must examine investigative reports and contradictions before allowing prosecution to continue.

Also Read – Supreme Court: “Polluter Pays Principle is Absolute” – Tanneries in Vellore Liable for Continuing Environmental Damage Until Full Ecological Restoration, Supreme Court Orders Reassessment of Compensation and Strict Enforcement of Pollution Control Measures