The Allahabad High Court, in Imran Khan @ Ashok Ratna v. State of U.P., rejected a plea seeking quashing of criminal proceedings including charges under Section 377 IPC, holding that unnatural intercourse by a husband with his wife without her consent constitutes an offence under Section 377, despite marital status.
Background:
The case arose from an FIR lodged on 23 February 2023 by the wife (Opposite Party No.2) against the applicant, Imran Khan @ Ashok Ratna, in Case Crime No. 41 of 2023 at Police Station Shivkuti, District Prayagraj. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 377 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police filed a chargesheet on 28 June 2023, and cognizance was taken on 10 August 2023 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj.
Arguments by Applicant:
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that:
- The FIR was delayed, as the last date of the alleged incident was in 2019 but the FIR was lodged in 2023.
- No offence under Section 377 IPC is made out as the parties are husband and wife.
- The wife refused to undergo medical examination, which undermines the prosecution’s case.
- Independent witnesses did not corroborate the complainant’s version.
- The complainant was aware of the applicant’s prior marriage, and voluntarily married him post-divorce.
Arguments by Opposite Party:
The counsel for the wife argued that:
- The affidavit claiming knowledge of the applicant’s previous marriage was given under duress.
- The FIR and statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC establish a prima facie case, and thus, the plea for quashing the proceedings should be rejected.
The State also opposed the plea and supported the arguments of the complainant.
Court’s Analysis:
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal addressed the key legal question—whether carnal intercourse by a husband with his wife, against her will, constitutes an offence under Section 377 IPC.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the Court noted that:
“If the carnal intercourse is non-consensual, then same is still an offence u/s 377 IPC.”
The Court disagreed with Madhya Pradesh High Court decisions that excluded non-consensual unnatural sex within marriage from Section 377. It held:
“A wife may be above 18 years but as an individual identity she has a choice for sexual orientation that has to be protected… her fundamental right not to give consent against the unnatural sex cannot be taken away.”
The Court emphasised:
“Unnatural sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife without her consent, even if she is above 18 years, would be punishable u/s 377 IPC though that may not be rape as per Section 375 IPC.”
Regarding delay in lodging the FIR, the Court held that it was inconsequential given the continuous harassment. It also dismissed the argument about medical examination, noting that other evidence in the case diary supported the complainant’s allegations.
The Court further cited Aluri Venkata Ramana v. Aluri Thirupathi Rao (SLP (Crl.) No. 9243 of 2024), stating:
“To attract the offence u/s 498A IPC, specific demand of dowry is not necessary, and cruelty committed by the husband is itself sufficient.”
Decision:
The High Court dismissed the application under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the criminal proceedings. However, it granted the applicant liberty to apply for bail before the trial court.
Citation:
Imran Khan @ Ashok Ratna v. State of U.P. and Another, Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 11862 of 2025
