A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The appeal challenges the High Court’s refusal to quash FIR No. 148 of 2022 (Model Town P.S., Hoshiarpur) registered initially under Section 366, 376 and 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860 after the accused-appellant (Kuldeep Singh) contended that the alleged victim had solemnised marriage with him of her own free will. The investigation by a Special Investigation Team resulted in deletion of Section 366 IPC from the charge-sheet while retaining Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The accused invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of all proceedings.

Material on record included:

(i) an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 21.06.2022 granting protection to petitioners who had filed jointly seeking shelter after a marriage said to be against family wishes;

(ii) a written statement dated 01.08.2023 by the victim in a restitution petition that did not allege rape; and

(iii) the SIT inquiry report which found that marriage was by consent.

The Supreme Court, noting non-appearance of the complainant and victim before it and that the prosecution case post-charge-sheet survives only for Sections 376 and 506 IPC, observed that sexual intercourse with one’s own wife falls within Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC and therefore cannot constitute rape in law. Given the contemporaneous judicial record indicating free consent to marriage and absence of prima facie evidence of force, the Supreme Court concluded that no sustainable case under Section 376 IPC subsisted and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

Keywords: Quashing of FIR; Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; consent to marriage; restitution of conjugal rights; SIT inquiry.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose from a complaint by the complainant (Respondent No. 2), cousin of the alleged victim (Respondent No. 3), reporting that the victim had not returned from work on 13.06.2022 and was feared abducted by the appellant, who had purportedly been harassing her. An FIR under Section 366 IPC was registered. The appellant maintained that he and the victim had solemnised marriage on 15.06.2022 according to Sikh rites and that the relatives opposed the marriage. Following the marriage, the couple jointly sought protective relief before the Punjab & Haryana High Court; the Court granted protection on 21.06.2022.

The victim later returned to her parental home and the appellant filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. On 01.09.2022 the victim recorded a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. alleging rape and coercion. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) probed the allegations; its inquiry concluded that the marriage was by consent and exonerated the appellant’s mother and brother. The charge-sheet (01.07.2023) omitted Section 366 IPC and retained Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The appellant sought quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court which dismissed the petition.

The appeal to the Supreme Court contested that dismissal and sought final quashment of the FIR and consequential proceedings. The Supreme Court analysed the investigative findings, corroborative judicial record (the protection petition order and the victim’s written statement in the restitution proceedings) and the legal import of Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC which excludes sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife from the definition of rape.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The complainant alleged that the victim disappeared from her workplace on 13.06.2022 and suspected abduction by the appellant, prompting registration of FIR No. 148/2022 under Section 366 IPC. The appellant asserted marriage to the victim on 15.06.2022 in the face of family opposition. Immediately after the marriage the couple sought and obtained police/high court protection on 21.06.2022 (joint petition CRWP No. 5913 of 2022). The victim allegedly returned to her parental home on 31.08.2022, following which the appellant initiated a restitution of conjugal rights petition.

On 01.09.2022 the victim gave a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. accusing the appellant of rape and forcible marriage, and naming the appellant’s mother and brother as alleged facilitators. The SIT investigation found absence of evidence on abduction or coercion and concluded that marriage was by the victim’s free will; consequently, Section 366 IPC was deleted from the charge-sheet while Sections 376 and 506 IPC remained. The appellant filed CRM-M No. 41161 of 2023 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings which the High Court rejected, leading to the present appeal. Neither the complainant nor the victim appeared before the Supreme Court despite service of notice.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether, on the materials on record, the continuation of criminal proceedings under Section 376 IPC against the appellant is maintainable in view of the SIT’s finding of consensual marriage?
ii. Whether Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC (which excludes sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife from the definition of rape) precludes sustenance of a charge under Section 376 IPC for acts alleged within the marital relationship?
iii. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to exercise Section 482 Cr.P.C. power to quash proceedings which appear bereft of prima facie evidence after inquiry?
iv. Whether non-appearance of the complainant and victim after service of notice is a relevant factor in determining the propriety of quashment?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The appellant maintained that he is the legally wedded husband of Respondent No. 3 and therefore there can be no offence under Section 376 IPC as Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC excludes sexual intercourse by a husband with his wife from rape.
ii. The appellant relied on the SIT’s inquiry report which found the marriage to be consensual and deleted Section 366 IPC from the challan; this investigation outcome negates the allegations of abduction and forced marriage.
iii. The appellant pointed to the joint protective petition and the High Court’s protective order dated 21.06.2022 to show that the victim married of her own volition and that relatives opposed the union.
iv. The appellant also highlighted that the victim’s written response in the restitution proceedings (dated 01.08.2023) made no allegation of rape.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The State/respondents contended before the High Court that the charges require appreciation of evidence and that quashment would circumvent trial.
ii. Implicitly, the prosecution relied on the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement by the victim alleging rape and coercion, arguing that such allegations engage criminal investigation and trial.
iii. The High Court accepted that evaluation of evidence is necessary and declined to exercise Section 482 Cr.P.C. power at that stage.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Section 482 Cr.P.C. — inherent powers of High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
ii. Section 366 IPC — punishment for kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel her marriage.
iii. Section 376 IPC — punishment for rape.
iv. Section 375 IPC and Exception 2 — definition of rape and statutory exclusion where sexual intercourse is by a man with his own wife.
v. Section 164 Cr.P.C. — recording of confessional or non-confessional statements by a Magistrate.
vi. Section 173 Cr.P.C. — report of police on completion of investigation (charge-sheet).
vii. Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — restitution of conjugal rights.

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It reviewed the investigative record, the contemporaneous High Court protective order and the victim’s written response in family proceedings. Noting that the SIT had found no proof of abduction or coercion and had accordingly deleted Section 366 IPC from the challan, the Court emphasized that only Sections 376 and 506 IPC remained in the charge-sheet. The Court observed that sexual intercourse within a valid marital relationship falls within Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, and therefore legally cannot constitute rape when the parties are lawful husband and wife.

The Court also placed weight on the fact that the victim and the complainant failed to appear in this Court despite service of notice, and that the victim’s written statement in the restitution petition contained no allegation of rape. On this matrix investigative conclusion of consensual marriage, judicial protection sought and granted jointly by the couple, absence of allegations in family court pleadings, and non-appearance before the Court the Supreme Court found no prima facie case to proceed under Section 376 IPC. The Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no purpose and amounted to an abuse of process, and therefore quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings. The High Court order dismissing the quash petition was set aside.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal proposition is that where a credible investigative record and contemporaneous judicial filings demonstrate that a marriage was solemnised by the free consent of the woman and that the complainant/victim do not pursue the criminal case, and when, as on record, the charge-sheet omits abduction and leaves only offences for which the statutory definition of rape excludes intercourse with one’s own wife (Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC), no prima facie case under Section 376 IPC is made out and the criminal proceedings can be quashed under the inherent powers of the Court. The Court applied Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and to secure ends of justice.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court’s observations underscore the relevance of investigative outcomes and allied family court records in deciding quashment petitions; it stressed that if material on record affirmatively indicates consent to marriage and absence of evidence on coercion, the prosecution ought not to be allowed to continue merely because a Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement exists. The non-appearance of prosecuting witnesses after notice is a relevant factor assessing the usefulness of trial. These observations, while grounded in facts of the case, offer guidance on interplay between family proceedings, investigative findings and criminal prosecution.

c. GUIDELINES 

i. Courts considering Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitions should examine the SIT/police inquiry and charge-sheet to see whether material prima facie establishes every essential ingredient of the alleged offence.
ii. Where statutory exceptions (e.g., Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC) negate the core of the charged offence, courts must consider quashment to prevent misuse.
iii. Contemporaneous filings in civil/family proceedings (protective petitions, restitution petitions and pleadings) that negate allegations of coercion are relevant and admissible for prima facie assessment.
iv. Persistent non-appearance of complainant/victim despite service after opportunity undermines the prosecution’s case and is a relevant consideration for quashment.
v. A Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement does not automatically preclude quashment if other material displaces its evidentiary weight.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision applies established principles of criminal procedure and statutory interpretation to the factual matrix where investigative findings and contemporaneous judicial acts point to consensual marriage. The ruling demonstrates judicial willingness to employ Section 482 Cr.P.C. where continuing prosecution would be futile or constitute abuse of process. The reliance on Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC is technically correct once a valid marital relationship is established and consent to marriage is proved, prima facie application of Section 376 IPC becomes legally unsustainable insofar as it relates to the marital intercourse alleged.

The judgment also exemplifies careful judicial calibration between allowing victims access to justice and preventing vexatious or unnecessary criminal proceedings when the record negates core allegations. Practitioners should note the Court’s emphasis on documentary material (protective orders, family court pleadings, SIT reports and charge-sheet composition) when drafting or opposing quash petitions. However, courts must remain vigilant to ensure such quashments are not used to frustrate genuine victims; every quashment must be fact-sensitive and based on a contemporaneous and cogent record indicating absence of prima facie criminality.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Kuldeep Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors., [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1392 : 2025 INSC 137.

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (esp. Sections 366, 375, 376, 506; Exception 2 to Section 375).
ii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (esp. Sections 164, 173, 482).
iii. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Section 9 — restitution of conjugal rights).