Sexual Intercourse By Man With His Wife Can’t Be Termed As Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR

Post By 24law
February 1, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR filed against a husband in a marital rape case, holding that as per Exception 2 under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sexual intercourse by a man with his legally wedded wife cannot be termed as rape. A Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale allowed the appeal filed against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had dismissed the appellant’s petition seeking quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 366, 376, and 506 of IPC.

Background of the Case

The case arose from an FIR lodged by the complainant, who was the cousin of the victim. The complaint alleged that the victim, who was employed at the National Insurance Company, had not returned home from work on June 13, 2022. The complainant suspected that she had been abducted by the appellant, who was allegedly harassing her. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered under Section 366 of IPC against the appellant. The appellant contended that he and the victim had married on June 15, 2022, as per Sikh rites and ceremonies, against the wishes of her family. To ensure their safety, the couple had also filed a protection petition before the High Court, which granted them protection. However, the victim later returned to her parental home, leading the appellant to file a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

Meanwhile, on September 1, 2022, the victim recorded a statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), alleging that the appellant had forcibly married and raped her. She further claimed that the appellant’s mother and brother had assisted him in committing these offenses. Consequently, additional charges under Sections 363, 120B, and 376 of IPC were added to the FIR. However, upon investigation, no evidence was found to support the charge under Section 363, leading to its deletion. The charges under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC remained against the appellant.

Arguments of the Appellant

The appellant argued that since he was the legally wedded husband of the victim, no offense under Section 376 of IPC could be made out against him due to the protection provided by Exception 2 under Section 375 of IPC. He further pointed out that in the written statement filed by the victim in response to his petition for restitution of conjugal rights, there was no mention of allegations of rape.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court noted that the victim and appellant had jointly filed a protection petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, stating that they had married of their own free will and against the wishes of the victim’s family. Additionally, the victim did not make any allegations of rape or forced marriage in her written statement filed in the restitution of conjugal rights case. The Bench observed: “In this regard, it has been rightly pointed out by the appellant that as per Exception 2 under Section 375 of IPC, sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife cannot be termed as rape and, hence, a charge under Section 376 of IPC cannot be sustained against the appellant.”

Furthermore, the Court noted that despite sufficient notice, the complainant and the victim failed to enter an appearance before the Court. “Further, the conduct of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 in failing to enter appearance despite sufficient notice is reflective of the fact that it is a dead case where no purpose shall be served in continuing the criminal proceedings alleging charges of rape against the appellant.”

Verdict

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court concluded that no prima facie offense was made out against the appellant. The Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, stating: “Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The impugned FIR No. 148 of 2022 dated 14.06.2022 filed before the P.S. Model Town, Hoshiarpur, Punjab against the appellant and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed.”