Can a man’s entire life be destroyed by a rape FIR even after marriage was legally registered?
The Rajasthan High Court says No, rape case cannot be made out when the marriage was legal, consensual, and voluntarily entered by a major woman.
JAIPUR: The Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 376, 384, 420 and 120B IPC against a husband after finding that the couple had legally solemnised their marriage under the Special Marriage Act with mutual consent.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the woman was a major at the time of marriage and had voluntarily participated in the entire court marriage process.
The case involved an inter-caste relationship where the couple decided to marry despite opposition from their families. Both parties jointly applied for marriage before the Marriage Officer in Jaipur on 10.03.2021. After the mandatory one-month public notice period and completion of all legal formalities, the marriage was solemnised on 12.04.2021 in the presence of witnesses, and a marriage certificate was issued.
Later, disputes arose between the parties. The husband approached the Family Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights, while the woman filed a petition seeking annulment of the marriage. During this period, the woman also lodged an FIR alleging that the petitioner had raped her, blackmailed her and forced her to sign the marriage papers.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the allegations were false because the marriage had taken place through a complete legal procedure before a government authority. The Court examined the marriage documents, affidavits and photographs placed on record and found that the prosecutrix had willingly participated in the marriage process.
The Court observed:
“However, it appears that subsequently, the prosecutrix has changed her mind and lodged the instant F.I.R., after a lapse of around two months from the date of solemnization of their marriage, wherein the allegations of rape have been levelled against the petitioner.”
While discussing Section 375 IPC, the Court referred to Exception 2, which states:
“Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.”
The High Court also relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., where the Apex Court had held:
“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.”
After considering the entire record, the Rajasthan High Court concluded that the woman was a major at the time of marriage and had voluntarily solemnised the marriage with the petitioner against the wishes of her family members.
The Court held:
“Lodging of the impugned F.I.R. on subsequent date amounts to abuse of process of law.”
Finally, while quashing the FIR, the Court clearly ruled:
“No offence of rape is made out against the legally wedded husband such as the petitioner.”
Accordingly, FIR registered at Police Station Harmada, Jaipur City (West) was quashed along with all consequential proceedings.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Section / Law | Purpose | Relevance In This Case |
| Section 376 IPC | Punishment for rape | FIR alleged rape against the husband |
| Section 375 IPC | Defines what constitutes rape | Court examined whether rape offence was made out after legal marriage |
| Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC | Sexual intercourse by a husband with his wife (above prescribed age) is not rape | Main legal protection relied upon by the Court |
| Section 384 IPC | Punishment for extortion | Allegation of blackmail and threats |
| Section 420 IPC | Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property | Allegation that marriage and acts were fraudulent |
| Section 120B IPC | Criminal conspiracy | FIR alleged conspiracy among accused persons |
| Special Marriage Act, 1954 | Law governing court marriages between consenting adults | Marriage between parties was solemnised under this Act |
| Section 5, Special Marriage Act | Procedure for giving notice of intended marriage | Couple jointly applied for marriage under this provision |
| Section 22, Special Marriage Act | Restitution of conjugal rights | Husband filed petition seeking restoration of matrimonial relationship |
| Section 25, Special Marriage Act | Voidable marriages / annulment | Wife sought annulment of marriage |
| Section 164 CrPC | Recording of statement before Magistrate | Discussed in Supreme Court precedent cited by the High Court |
| Section 173 CrPC | Filing of police chargesheet after investigation | Mentioned in Supreme Court precedent relied upon by Court |
Case Details
- Case Title: Gajendra Mourya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
- Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur
- Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
- Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4245/2021
- Date of Judgment: 30/03/2026
- Counsels:
- For Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Sharma for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta
- For State: Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Public Prosecutor
- For Respondent: Mr. Yunus Khan
Key Takeaways
- Adult men are increasingly being dragged into serious criminal cases even after legally valid and consensual relationships.
- Criminal law cannot become a revenge tool after failed relationships or family pressure against inter-caste marriages.
- Mere change of mind after marriage should not be allowed to destroy a man’s life through rape allegations.
- Legal documents, consent records, photographs and official procedures matter more than emotional allegations made later.
- False criminal accusations not only damage innocent men and families, but also weaken the credibility of genuine victims.
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.