Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal against Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision, wherein the husband’s (accused) application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR for offences under Section 366, 376, and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) was dismissed, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. held that no prima facie case constituting any offence was made out against the accused hence, the impugned order of the High Court was quashed along with all the consequential proceedings.
Background
According to the accused, the victim and the accused married each other on 15-06-2022 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies against the wishes of her relatives. It was stated that post their marriage in view of the opposition by the family members, the couple had also filed a protection petition before the High Court seeking protection of their life and liberty. However, the victim-wife allegedly returned to her parental home on 31-08-2022 which also led to the accused filing a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights with his legally wedded wife.
The complainant/ cousin of the alleged wife lodged and FIR stating that the victim did not return home from her office, and feared that she was abducted by the accused who was alleged to be harassing her for the past few days. The alleged wife also recorded a statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, raising allegations of rape against the accused and also alleged that the marriage was solemnised forcibly by the accused. It was further alleged that the mother and brother of the accused had also assisted him in the commission of said crimes.
Decision
The Court noted that the Special Investigation Team had conducted an investigation into the matter and filed an inquiry report. In furtherance of the inquiry report, wherein, it was stated that the allegations levelled by the victim against the accused regarding kidnapping and pressurising her for marriage were not proved as it was found that the victim had solemnised the marriage with the accused with her own consent. It was also found that no role could be attributed to the mother or brother of the accused and hence they were completely exonerated as no evidence could be collected against them.
The Court also pointed out that neither the complainant nor the accused appeared before the Court even after notice was served. The Court perused the High Court’s order which allowed the protection to the couple. The Court said that the petition for protection was jointly filed by the accused and his alleged wife as she had married the accused of her own free will and volition against the wishes of her family members. The Court also noted that in the reply filed by the wife to the accused’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the allegation of rape or marriage by force against the accused was made nowhere.
The Court agreed with the submissions of the accused and said that it was rightly pointed out by the accused that as per Exception 2 under Section 375 of the IPC, sexual intercourse by a man with his wife cannot be termed as rape and, hence, a charge under Section 376 of IPC was unsustainable against the accused.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Prasanna B. Varale, J.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
