Constitution of India, 1950 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Indian Penal Code, 1860

Quashing of FIR – Criminal Appeal against dismissal of petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – FIR lodged under Sections 366, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Special Investigation Team Report confirming that marriage was solemnized with mutual consent – No prima facie case for rape against legally wedded husband – Applicability of Exception 2 under Section 375 of the IPC – FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed.

Held: The appellant was legally wedded to the complainant, and the Special Investigation Team found that the marriage was solemnized with free will – No case for rape made out under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC – Failure of complainant to appear before the Supreme Court despite notice reinforced the appellant’s case – FIR and proceedings quashed.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 (Inherent Powers of High Court), Section 164 (Recording of Confession and Statements)
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 366 (Kidnapping, Abducting or Inducing Woman to Marry), 376 (Rape), 506 (Criminal Intimidation), 363 (Kidnapping), 120B (Criminal Conspiracy)
• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 9 (Restitution of Conjugal Rights)

Subjects:

Quashing of FIR – Marital Rape Exception – False Allegations – Consent – Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Criminal Proceedings – Inherent Powers of High Court – Special Investigation Team – Protection Order

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation:

The appellant challenged the dismissal of his petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 366, 376, and 506 IPC.

2. Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy?

The appellant, Kuldeep Singh, sought quashing of FIR No. 148 of 2022 and all consequential proceedings on the ground that he had legally married Respondent No. 3, and the allegations of rape were false.

3. Reason for Filing the Case:

The FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 2, alleging that the appellant had abducted the victim. Subsequently, the victim accused the appellant of forced marriage and rape. The appellant contended that their marriage was solemnized with mutual consent, and the allegations were fabricated due to opposition from the victim’s family.

4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now?

• The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appellant’s plea, holding that the case required trial.
• The Special Investigation Team found that the victim married the appellant willingly, leading to the deletion of Section 366 IPC but retaining Section 376 IPC.
• The Supreme Court took note of the fact that neither the complainant nor the victim appeared before the Court despite sufficient notice.

Issues:

a) Whether the FIR alleging rape could be sustained in light of Exception 2 under Section 375 IPC?
b) Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the quashing petition despite the Special Investigation Team’s findings?
c) Whether continuing the trial would be an abuse of the legal process?

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellant’s Arguments:

  • He was legally wedded to Respondent No. 3, and marital intercourse could not amount to rape under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC.
  • The Special Investigation Team’s inquiry report found no evidence of forced marriage or abduction.
  • The victim did not allege rape in her reply to the restitution of conjugal rights petition.
  • The complainant and the victim failed to appear before the Supreme Court.

• State’s Arguments:

  • The High Court rightly refused to quash the FIR as the allegations required trial.

Decision:

• The Supreme Court quashed FIR No. 148 of 2022 and all consequential proceedings, holding that:
  • The marriage was consensual.
  • The prosecution of the appellant under Section 376 IPC was legally untenable in light of Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC.
  • No useful purpose would be served by continuing criminal proceedings.

Ratio:

• Sexual intercourse between legally wedded spouses cannot be termed as rape under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC.
• Once a Special Investigation Team exonerates co-accused and finds no evidence of coercion, the case lacks prosecutorial merit.
• The failure of complainants to appear before the Supreme Court strengthens the inference that the case is fabricated.