We need to pay our unremitting and singular attention to the glaring and irrefutable fact that the Supreme Court while ruling on a very significant legal point pertaining to sexual intercourse by a man with his wife has in a most remarkable, robust, reassuring, rational and recent judgment titled Kuldeep Singh vs State of Punjab & Ors in Criminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.13277 of 2023) and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 137 that was pronounced as recently as on January 31, 2025 has quashed an FIR in a marital rape case after taking note of the appellant-husband’s valid argument that as per Exception 2 under Section 375 of the IPC, sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife cannot be termed as rape. It must be laid bare that the top court was considering an appeal that had been preferred against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the accused-appellant’s petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 that had sought quashing of the FIR that had been registered under Sections 366, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was dismissed. Most glaringly, we see that the Division Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr Justice Prasanna B Varale clearly opined that, “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.” We further also see that considering the finding that no prima facie case constituting any offence was made out against the appellant, the Bench allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned FIR that had been lodged against the appellant and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this progressive, pragmatic, pertinent and peculiar judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram Nath for a Bench of Apex Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Prasanna B Varale sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “The instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CRM-M-No. 41161 of 2023 wherein the accused-appellant’s petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the FIR No. 148 dated 14.06.2022 under Section 366, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was dismissed.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 while elaborating on the facts of the case that, “Brief facts of the matter are that Respondent No. 2 is the complainant and cousin of Respondent No. 3/victim and FIR No. 148 of 2022 was lodged by him stating that the victim who was working at National Insurance Company and was dropped at her office by the complainant on the morning of 13.06.2022. It was stated in the FIR that she had left her office at around 1.30 p.m. that afternoon and when she did not return, the complainant feared that she has been abducted by the appellant herein who was alleged to be harassing her for the past few days. Thus, the said FIR was lodged under Section 366 of IPC against the appellant.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 4 that, “Whereas, it was the case of the appellant that the appellant and Respondent No. 3 had married each other on 15.06.2022 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies against the wishes of the relatives of the Respondent No. 3 and hence, the said FIR has been lodged against him which deserves to be quashed. The appellant had also stated that post their marriage in view of the opposition by the family members of the Respondent No. 3, the couple had also filed a protection petition being CRWP No. 5913 of 2022 dated 16.06.2022 before the High Court seeking protection of their life and liberty. The said relief was granted by the High Court vide order dated 21.06.2022.”
Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 5 that, “However, the Respondent No. 3 allegedly returned to her parental home on 31.08.2022 which had also led to the appellant filing a Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights with his legally wedded wife, i.e. the Respondent No. 3.”
Do further note, the Bench further notes in para 6 that, “In the meanwhile, the Respondent No. 3 on 01.09.2022 recorded a statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C, with the Ld. JMFC raising allegations of rape against the appellant and also alleged that the marriage has been solemnised forcibly by the appellant. It was further alleged that mother and brother of the appellant had also assisted the appellant in the commission of said crimes. Accordingly, the names of brother and mother of the appellant were also added to the FIR along with addition of Sections 363, 120B and 376 of IPC.”
As things stands, it is then laid bare in para 7 stating that, “Accordingly, the Special Investigation Team3 consisting of Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, Deputy Superintendent of Police-Crime against Women and Children, Hoshiarpur and Deputy Superintendent of Police-Sub Division City Hoshiarpur had conducted investigation in the matter and filed an inquiry report. In furtherance of the inquiry report, the police filed the challan dated 01.07.2023 under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. which stated that from the investigation conducted by SIT, allegations levelled by the victim against Kuldeep Singh regarding kidnapping and pressurizing her for marriage have not been proved as it was found that the victim has solemnised the marriage with the appellant with her own consent. It was also found that no role can be attributed to the mother or brother of the appellant and hence they were completely exonerated as no evidence could be collected against them. As such, Section 366 of IPC was deleted and only Sections 376 and 506 of IPC survived against the appellant as per the chargesheet.”
Truth be told, the Bench points out in para 8 that, “Thereafter, the appellant had preferred CRM-M-No. 41161 of 2023 dated 18.08.2023 before the High Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 148 of 2022 and all consequential proceedings. The High Court, vide the impugned order, had dismissed the appellant’s petition while holding that the petition lacked any merit and the matter required evaluation of evidence and adjudication by the Trial Court.”
Needless to say, the Bench then reveals in para 9 stating that, “Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us.”
It is worth noting which cannot be just glossed over that the Bench notes in para 10 that, “Before moving forward, we find it relevant to note here that neither Respondent No. 2, i.e. the complainant nor Respondent No. 3, i.e. the victim has entered appearance before this Court despite sufficient service of notice.”
Notably, the Bench also notes in para 13 that, “It would be relevant to refer to Annexure P-3 which is an order passed by Ld. Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CRWP No. 5913 of 2022 on 21.06.2022 providing protection to the petitioners therein being the appellant and Respondent No. 3. The said petition had been jointly filed by the appellant and Respondent No. 3 seeking protection from the family members of the Respondent No. 3 as she had married the appellant of her own free will and volition against the wishes of her family members. Moreover, it may also be noted that in the reply filed by the Respondent No. 3 to the appellant’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights, she has not made any allegation of rape or marriage by force against the appellant. Further, the Respondent No. 3 or for that matter Respondent No. 2 despite service of notice, have not come forward to dispute or deny the above facts.”
Be it noted, the Bench then notes in para 14 that, “Importantly, it must be noted that the case as of now, after the filing of chargesheet, survives only to the extent of allegations under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC as it was established during the inquiry that the victim had solemnised the marriage with the appellant out of her own free will.”
Most significantly and most forthrightly, the Bench then while adding more to it encapsulates in para 15 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “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. 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.”
As a corollary, the Bench then points out in para 16 that, “As such, given the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that no prima facie case constituting any offence is made out against the appellant and he is entitled to the relief sought.”
Resultantly, the Bench then directs and holds in para 17 that, “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.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 18 that, “Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
In a nutshell, we thus see that the bottom-line of this notable judgment that has been pronounced by the top court is that sexual intercourse by a man with his wife can’t be termed as rape. There can be just no gainsaying that all the High Courts and so also the District Courts must definitely pay heed to what the Apex Court has held so very clearly, cogently and convincingly in this leading case and in similar such cases must rule accordingly. This alone explains why even Centre is not in favour of criminalizing sex between husband and wife because this will ultimately result in gross abuse of law and more and more false cases pertaining to marital rape will be lodged as we see presently in misuse of laws like Section 498A of IPC among others! Absolutely right!
Sanjeev Sirohi