Penal Code, 1860 – ss.366, 376 and 506 – Allegation against the accused-appellant that he abducted the respondent no. 3/victim – FIR u/s.366 IPC was registered – Whereas, it was the case of the appellant that he and respondent no. 3 had married each other – The respondent no. 3 had recorded a statement u/s.164 of the Cr.P.C, with the JMFC raising allegations of rape against the appellant and also alleged that the marriage was solemnised forcibly by the appellant – After investigation, the SIT filed the inquiry report – s.366 of IPC was deleted and only ss.376 and 506 of IPC survived against the appellant as per the charge-sheet – Appellant sought quashing of criminal proceedings – The High Court, vide the impugned order, had dismissed the appellant’s petition – Correctness: Held: The appellant has also brought to notice the written statement dated 01.08.2023 filed by the respondent no. 3 in the matter of restitution of conjugal rights and highlighted that she has nowhere made any allegations pertaining to rape against the appellant in the said written statement – There is also an order passed by the High Court on 21.06.2022 providing protection to the petitioners therein being the appellant and respondent no. 3 – The said petition was jointly filed by the appellant and respondent no. 3 seeking protection from the family members of the respondent no. 3 as she had married the appellant of her own free will and volition against the wishes of her family members – Further, the respondent no. 3 or for that matter respondent no. 2 despite service of notice, have not come forward to dispute or deny the above facts – It must be noted that the case as of now, after the filing of charge-sheet, survives only to the extent of allegations u/ss.376 and 506 of IPC as it was established during the inquiry that the victim had solemnised the marriage with the appellant out of her own free will – It has been rightly pointed out by the appellant that as per Exception 2 u/s.375 of IPC, sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife cannot be termed as rape and, hence, a charge u/s.376 of IPC cannot be sustained against the appellant – Further, the conduct of the respondent no. 2 and 3 in failing to enter appearance despite sufficient notice is reflective of the fact that it is a dead case where no purpose shall be served in continuing the criminal proceedings alleging charges of rape against the appellant – As such, given the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that no prima facie case constituting any offence is made out against the appellant and he is entitled to the relief sought – Thus, the impugned FIR filed against the appellant and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.