The Supreme Court quashed a rape case after it noticed that the sexual relationship between the accused and the complainant was after the 'forced' marriage.

The Court observed thus in an appeal challenging the order of the Uttarakhand High Court by which the application filed by the accused for quashing the proceedings under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC was rejected.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta said, “It is, thus, clear from her own statement that she was forced to marry the appellant. As such, the relationship between the appellant and the complainant was after the said marriage. … It could thus be seen that even if the statement made by the complainant is taken on its face value, the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 376 IPC are not made out.”

Advocate Sanjay Kumar Dubey appeared for the appellant while Advocate Saurabh Trivedi appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the accused/appellant was in relationship with the complainant and the same was against the wishes of the parents, but they decided to reside together. The complainant’s father filed a Habeas Corpus Petition before the High Court alleging that his daughter was illegally detained by the accused and for a direction for production of the complainant.

Thereafter, the accused and complainant resided together for a considerable time. However, there was a discord between both and after that they started residing separately. Then the complainant filed an FIR before the Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 377, and 506 of the IPC.

The Apex Court in view of the above facts noted, “When the matter was heard by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the learned Judge, as can be seen from the impugned order, had also interacted with the complainant. A perusal of the impugned order would clearly reveal that the complainant had stated before the learned Judge that she was forced to solemnize the marriage against her wishes with the appellant herein.”

The Court further said that even the complainant herself does not want to proceed further with the proceedings and that she has stated in her affidavit filed before the Court that they have mutually obtained a divorce and it was finalized by Talaq-E-Khula on September 7, 2022.

“We find that the continuation of proceedings in these circumstances would be prejudicial even to the interest of the complainant and she would be forced to continue with the case, which she does not want”, it added.

The Court also said that both the appellant and complainant have resolved their disputes and decided to lead their lives peacefully and hence, continuation of the criminal proceedings would not be in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the order of the High Court.

Cause Title- Mohd. Julfukar v. The State of Uttarakhand and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 38)


Appellant: Advocates Shuchi Singh, Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Krishna Kant Dubey, Vivek Kumar Pandey, Jainendra Kumar, Ujjwal Kumar Dubey, Aman Kumar, and Sandeep Kumar Saini.

Respondents: AOR Saurabh Trivedi

Click here to read/download the Judgment