Can a legally registered marriage, jointly defended before the High Court, later become the basis of rape allegations against the husband? The Rajasthan High Court examined the couple’s marriage records, earlier conduct and subsequent allegations before quashing the FIR.
RAJASTHAN: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a 2025 FIR alleging rape, cheating, extortion and other offences against a husband after finding that the record showed that the complainant, who was a major, had voluntarily entered into a registered interfaith marriage with him under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed:
“The registration of the impugned FIR is nothing but abuse of the process of law.”
The couple had married before the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur, on November 21, 2022. Their marriage was formally registered, and a marriage certificate was issued. Since it was an interfaith marriage and they allegedly faced threats from their respective families, the husband and wife had jointly approached the authorities and also moved the Rajasthan High Court seeking protection of their life and liberty.
The couple thereafter continued living as husband and wife and a daughter was born to them on October 14, 2024.
However, in 2025, nearly three years after the marriage, the wife lodged an FIR. She alleged that the husband had used drugs, medicines and black magic to influence her, fraudulently induced her into the marriage and repeatedly sexually assaulted her.
The husband approached the High Court for quashing of the FIR. He argued that the allegations were inconsistent with the registered marriage, the couple’s earlier joint petition seeking protection and their subsequent conduct as husband and wife.
The State and the complainant opposed the petition. They argued that she had been manipulated through drugs, medicines and black magic into ending her earlier marriage and entering into the second marriage. The police had already filed a chargesheet and the trial court had framed charges under Sections 419, 420, 384, 327, 328, 344 and 120B IPC, along with Section 6(2) of the Rajasthan Prevention of Witch-Hunting Act, 2015.
The High Court, however, placed significant weight on the undisputed circumstances surrounding the marriage. It noted that the complainant was a major, the marriage had been solemnised and registered under the Special Marriage Act, and both parties had earlier approached the High Court together seeking protection for the same relationship.
On the rape allegation, the Court considered Section 375 IPC and Exception 2 and held that, in the facts of this case, Section 376 IPC could not be sustained against the legally wedded husband.
The Court observed:
“The offence punishable under Section 376 is not made out, as he is covered under the Exception 2 appended to Section 375 IPC.”
The High Court also found that the remaining allegations did not disclose a prima facie case. The earlier conduct of the parties, particularly their registered marriage, joint request for protection and continued matrimonial relationship, was considered significant while examining allegations made years later.
The Court further held that the quashing petition remained maintainable even though a chargesheet had been filed and charges had been framed. It relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mukesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh while considering its power to prevent abuse of criminal proceedings.
After examining the overall circumstances, the Court again observed:
“The registration of the impugned FIR is nothing but abuse of the process of law.”
The Rajasthan High Court accordingly quashed FIR No. 299 of 2025 and all consequential criminal proceedings against the husband. The case shows why the complete history of a matrimonial relationship, including marriage records, earlier court proceedings and the parties’ contemporaneous conduct, can become crucial when serious criminal allegations are subsequently made.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS
| Law / Section | What It Means | Application in This Case |
| Section 375 IPC | Defines the offence of rape and contains statutory exceptions. | The Court examined Exception 2 while considering the allegation against the legally wedded husband. |
| Section 376(2)(n) IPC | Provides punishment where rape is alleged to have been committed repeatedly on the same woman. | It was among the offences alleged in the FIR. The High Court held that Section 376 was not made out against the husband in the facts of the case. |
| Section 419 IPC | Punishment for cheating by personation. | Alleged in the FIR/proceedings against the petitioner. |
| Section 420 IPC | Punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. | One of the charges referred to in the proceedings. |
| Section 384 IPC | Punishment for extortion. | Included among the offences alleged against the petitioner. |
| Section 327 IPC | Concerns voluntarily causing hurt to extort property or compel an illegal act. | Included among the charges reportedly framed by the trial court. |
| Section 328 IPC | Covers administering poison, intoxicating or harmful substances with intent to commit/facilitate an offence. | Relevant to the allegation that drugs or medicines were administered to the complainant. |
| Section 344 IPC | Punishes wrongful confinement for ten or more days. | Included among the charges reportedly framed. |
| Section 120B IPC | Punishment for criminal conspiracy. | Invoked in connection with the alleged conspiracy. |
| Section 6(2), Rajasthan Prevention of Witch-Hunting Act, 2015 | Provision under Rajasthan’s law dealing with prohibited witch-hunting-related conduct. | A charge under this provision was also reportedly framed in connection with the black-magic allegations. |
| Special Marriage Act, 1954 | Provides a civil framework for solemnisation and registration of marriages, including interfaith marriages. | The parties had formally solemnised their marriage under this Act on November 21, 2022. |
CASE DETAILS
| Case Particular | Details |
| Case Title | R v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
| Case Number | S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5664/2025 |
| Bench | Hon’ble Mr Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand |
| Decision Date | July 17, 2026 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:RJ-JP:27391 |
COUNSELS APPEARED
| Party | Counsel |
| Petitioner | Mr Sushil Pujari; Mr Rahul Kumar Sharma |
| State / Respondent(s) | Mr Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP; Mr Ashutosh Bhatia |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- She Married Him, Then Accused Him: A legally registered husband later faced rape, cheating and extortion allegations.
- Marriage Records Became His Shield: Their registered marriage, joint protection plea and child contradicted the later criminal case.
- He Still Had to Fight Criminal Proceedings: Despite documented matrimonial life, the husband was dragged into serious litigation.
- Rajasthan HC Quashed the Case: The Court found the rape charge unsustainable in the facts and ended the proceedings.
- Court Called It “Abuse of Process of Law”: The man had to reach the High Court just to escape a case the Court said should not continue.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
