The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, while partly allowing a quashment petition, has observed that in light of the statutory exception for marital relations, the aspect of consent within a marriage is legally immaterial for the purpose of prosecuting a husband for sexual acts that otherwise fall under the expanded definition of rape or “unnatural offences.”
Background
The case arose from a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by the husband, his parents, and his sister seeking to quash FIR No. 21/2023. The complainant alleged she was subjected to cruelty, harassment for an additional dowry of Rs. 6,00,000 and a motorcycle, and various forms of physical and sexual abuse, including “unnatural acts.”
The FIR was registered under Sections 377, 354, 498-A, 323, 294, 506, and 34 of the IPC, alongside the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Arms Act.
Arguments
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the allegations were “general and omnibus” and motivated by personal vendetta. They emphasized that the sister-in-law was assigned no specific role in the complainant’s statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The defense further contended that the serious sexual allegations were omitted from earlier maintenance proceedings and were “subsequent embellishments” intended as a counterblast to the husband’s divorce petition.
The State and the complainant’s counsel opposed the petition, stating the allegations were grave and supported by recorded statements, arguing that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated at the threshold under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Court’s Analysis
On the Sister-in-Law: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke found that the allegations against the sister-in-law lacked specificity. The court noted:
“In absence of any specific allegation demonstrating her active involvement in the alleged offences, her implication appears to be vague and prima facie an abuse of the process of law.”
On Section 377 IPC and Marital Exception: The court examined the 2013 amendment to Section 375 IPC, which expanded the definition of rape to include various forms of penetration, including oral and anal acts. The court observed that these acts were previously categorized as “unnatural offences” under Section 377.
Drawing on paragraph 17 of the judgment, which references Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018) and Manish Sahu vs. State of M.P., the court held:
“…in light of Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a husband with his wife (not being a minor) do not constitute rape, thereby rendering the aspect of consent within marriage legally immaterial for the purpose of prosecuting such acts as rape.”
The court further clarified that because these acts now fall within the definition of rape—subject to the marital exception—Section 377 cannot be invoked:
“In view of the expanded definition of rape… and the statutory exception in favour of marital relations, the offence under Section 377 IPC cannot be invoked for such acts between husband and wife during subsistence of marriage.”
Decision
The High Court partly allowed the petition with the following directions:
- The FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed entirely against the sister-in-law.
- The charge under Section 377 IPC was quashed against the husband.
- The court refused to quash charges under Sections 498-A, 354, 323, 294, 506, 34 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband and his parents, holding that these involve disputed questions of fact to be examined during trial.
Case Details:
- Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 23881 of 2024
- Bench: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
- Date of Order: March 25, 2026
