JAIPUR: <\/em>The Rajasthan High Court<\/a><\/strong> quashed an FIR registered under Sections 376, 384, 420 and 120B IPC<\/strong> against a husband after finding that the couple had legally solemnised their marriage under the Special Marriage Act<\/strong> with mutual consent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand<\/strong> held that the woman was a major at the time of marriage and had voluntarily participated<\/strong> in the entire court marriage process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case involved an inter-caste relationship<\/strong> where the couple decided to marry despite opposition from their families. Both parties jointly applied for marriage<\/strong> 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<\/strong> in the presence of witnesses, and a marriage certificate was issued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Later, disputes arose between the parties. The husband approached the Family Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights<\/strong>, while the woman filed a petition seeking annulment of the marriage<\/strong>. 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<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the allegations were false because the marriage had taken place through a complete legal procedure<\/strong> 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “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.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n While discussing Section 375 IPC<\/strong>, the Court referred to Exception 2, which states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court also relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.<\/em>,<\/strong> where the Apex Court had held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “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.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n After considering the entire record, the Rajasthan High Court concluded that the woman was a major at the time of marriage<\/strong> and had voluntarily solemnised the marriage with the petitioner against the wishes of her family members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Lodging of the impugned F.I.R. on subsequent date amounts to abuse of process of law.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Finally, while quashing the FIR, the Court clearly ruled:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “No offence of rape is made out against the legally wedded husband such as the petitioner.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, FIR registered at Police Station Harmada, Jaipur City (West) was quashed along with all consequential proceedings.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table:\u00a0 Laws And Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n