Abuse Of Process Of Law: Rajasthan High Court Quashes "Rape Case" Against Husband

The Court held that since the prosecutrix was an adult who had voluntarily solemnized an inter-caste marriage with the petitioner under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the relationship was protected under Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court emphasized that when an accused is the legally wedded husband of a victim who has attained the age of majority, sexual intercourse between them does not constitute the offence of rape, thereby rendering subsequent allegations of non-consent or coercion legally unsustainable.

The Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed, “Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the prosecutrix is a major lady of the age of above 18 years at the time of marriage and she herself has solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 12.04.2021, lodging of the impugned F.I.R. on subsequent date amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, the entire proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. stand quashed and set-aside.”

Advocate Rahul Sharma appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Vivek Choudhary appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The petitioner preferred the instant criminal miscellaneous petition seeking the quashing of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) registered against him at Police Station Harmada, District Jaipur City (West). The said F.I.R. was registered for offences punishable under Sections 376, 384, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecutrix and the petitioner had previously moved a joint application for the solemnization of their marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, before the competent Marriage Officer. At the time of filing the said application, the prosecutrix was a major.

Following the statutory notice period and the submission of necessary affidavits by the parties and their witnesses, the marriage was duly solemnized, and a marriage certificate was officially issued by the Marriage Officer.

Subsequently, disputes arose regarding the validity of the marriage. The petitioner instituted proceedings before the Family Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights, whereas the prosecutrix filed a counter-application seeking the annulment of the marriage.

The Family Court jointly heard and rejected both applications. Aggrieved by the said consolidated order, both parties preferred separate civil miscellaneous appeals, which remained pending for adjudication on merits before the High Court.

During the interim period, the prosecutrix lodged the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioner, alleging that he had been continuously committing sexual assault upon her, had blackmailed her into signing the marriage documents, and had recorded obscene videos of her.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The Petitioner submitted that the prosecutrix was a major at the material time, and the marriage was solemnized strictly in accordance with the procedure established under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. It was contended that the allegations of rape and coercion were highly unbelievable, afterthought, and completely fabricated by the prosecutrix, especially given that she had voluntarily appeared before the Marriage Officer and executed the marriage documents. The petitioner argued that since the prosecutrix was his legally wedded wife, the alleged offences under the IPC were not made out against him.

Contentions of the Respondents

Per contra, the State and the complainant-prosecutrix contended that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged marriage, and her consent for the solemnization of the marriage was entirely vitiated, having been obtained through extortion, blackmail, and the threat of circulating obscene videos.

The respondents submitted that the prosecutrix never accepted the factum of marriage, which prompted her to approach the Family Court for its annulment. It was further argued that since a prima facie case of sexual assault and criminal intimidation was established through the contents of the F.I.R., the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings was not warranted, and the petition deserved to be dismissed.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that the prosecutrix was indisputably a major at the time of the intended matrimony. The parties had jointly approached the competent Marriage Officer by preferring an application under Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, declaring their mutual intention to intermarry.

It was noted that the Marriage Officer strictly adhered to the statutory procedure by inviting objections through a mandatory one-month notice period. Upon the expiration of the said period without any objections being received, the petitioner, the prosecutrix, and three witnesses appeared before the authority, executed the necessary affidavits, and recorded their statements. Being fully satisfied with the compliance of law, the Marriage Officer solemnized the marriage and issued a valid marriage certificate.

The Court further observed from the photographic evidence annexed to the petition that the marriage was solemnized with the explicit mutual consent of both parties. It appeared to the Court that the prosecutrix subsequent to the marriage, changed her mind and lodged the impugned F.I.R. after a considerable lapse of time, levelling allegations of continuous sexual assault and coercion.

The Court adverted to the statutory framework governing the offence of rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was observed that under the expansive definition of the offence, Exception 2 explicitly mandates that sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being a minor, does not constitute the offence of rape.

Placing strong reliance upon the landmark precedents of the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India and Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., the Court reiterated the settled position of law that where the accused is the legally wedded husband of the victim, a charge under Section 376 IPC cannot be sustained, as the aspect of consent within wedlock becomes legally immaterial.

The Court took judicial notice of the fact that the parties desired to marry each other against the wishes of their families owing to the inter-caste nature of their alliance. The prosecutrix had voluntarily invoked the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which established that she had solemnized the marriage of her own free will and volition.

“Hence, it is clear that the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with the petitioner of her own wish and will, and against the wish and will of her family members. Hence, no prima facie case is made against the petitioner, constituting any offence…Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the prosecutrix is a major lady of the age of above 18 years at the time of marriage and she herself has solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 12.04.2021, lodging of the impugned F.I.R. on subsequent date amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, the entire proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. stand quashed and set-aside”, the Court said.

Consequently, the Court held that since the prosecutrix was a major and the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, no prima facie case of rape or any other cognizable offence was made out against the petitioner. The lodging of the impugned F.I.R. at a belated stage was deemed a gross abuse of the process of law.

“Hence, it is clear that if the accused is legally wedded husband of the victim, the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC is not made out as he is covered under Exception 2 appended to Section 375 IPC”, it said.

The Court accordingly allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R.

Cause Title: XXXX v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4245/2021]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Rahul Sharma and Rajneesh Gupta

Respondents: Advocates Vivek Choudhary and Yunus Khan

Click here to read/download the Order