The Rajasthan High Court quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against a husband for the offenses of rape, extortion, cheating and criminal conspiracy, observing that the criminal proceedings amounted to gross abuse of the legal process.
The Court held that since the prosecutrix was an adult who had voluntarily solemnized an inter-caste marriage with the petitioner under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the relationship was protected under Exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court noted that when a defendant is the legally married husband of a victim who has reached the age of majority, sexual relations between them do not constitute the crime of rape, making subsequent allegations of lack of consent or coercion legally unsustainable.
The bank of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed, “Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the fact that the prosecutrix is an important lady above the age of 18 years at the time of marriage and she herself has solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 04.12.2021, filing of the impugned FIR at a later date amounts to abuse of legal process. Therefore, the entire proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR stand quashed and set aside.”
Lawyer Rahul Sharma appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while Lawyer Vivek Choudhary appeared on behalf of the defendants.
Factual background
The petitioner preferred the present miscellaneous criminal petition seeking quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) registered against him at Harmada Police Station, Jaipur City District (West). The said FIR was registered for offenses punishable under sections 376, 384, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The prosecutrix and the petitioner had earlier filed a joint application for solemnization of their marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, before the competent marriage officer. At the time of filing said lawsuit, the prosecutor was older.
Following the legal notice period and the submission of the necessary affidavits by the parties and their witnesses, the marriage was duly solemnized and a marriage certificate was officially issued by the Marriage Officer.
Disputes subsequently arose over the validity of the marriage. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Family Court requesting the restitution of conjugal rights, while the prosecutor filed a counterclaim requesting the annulment of the marriage.
The Family Court heard and dismissed both applications jointly. Aggrieved by the said consolidated order, both parties preferred various separate civil remedies, which were pending decision on the merits before the Superior Court.
During the interim period, the prosecutrix lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioner, alleging that he had been continuously sexually assaulting her, blackmailing her into signing the marriage documents and recording obscene videos of her.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner submitted that the prosecutrix was elderly at the time of occurrence and that the marriage was solemnized strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Special Marriage Act, 1954. It was held that the allegations of rape and coercion were highly incredible, belated and completely fabricated by the prosecutrix, especially considering that she had voluntarily appeared before the Marriage Officer and executed the marriage papers. The petitioner argued that since the prosecutrix was his legally married wife, the alleged offenses under the IPC were not charged against her.
Arguments of the defendants
On the contrary, the State and the complaining prosecutor maintained that the prosecutor was a minor at the time of the alleged marriage, and her consent to the solemnization of the marriage was entirely flawed, having been obtained through extortion, blackmail, and threats of circulating obscene videos.
The defendants maintained that the prosecutor never accepted the factum of the marriage, which led her to go to the Family Court to request its annulment. It was further argued that since the contents of the FIR established a prima facie case of sexual assault and criminal intimidation, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings was not justified and the petition deserved to be dismissed.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the prosecutrix was unquestionably elderly at the time of the intended marriage. The parties had jointly approached the competent marriage officer preferring an application under section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, declaring their mutual intention to enter into a mixed marriage.
It was observed that the Marriage Officer strictly adhered to the legal procedure in soliciting objections through a mandatory notice period of one month. Once said period expired without any objections being received, the petitioner, the prosecutor and three witnesses appeared before the authority, granted the necessary sworn statements and recorded their statements. Being fully satisfied with compliance with the law, the Marriage Officer solemnized the marriage and issued a valid marriage certificate.
The Court further observed from the photographic evidence attached to the petition that the marriage was solemnized with the explicit mutual consent of both parties. It appeared to the Court that the prosecutrix after the marriage changed her mind and filed the impugned FIR after a considerable lapse of time, leveling allegations of continuous sexual assault and coercion.
The Court referred to the legal framework governing the offense of rape under section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was noted that, under the broad definition of the crime, Exception 2 explicitly requires that sexual relations or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, who is not a minor, do not constitute the crime of rape.
Rely firmly on the historical precedents of the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar vs. union of india and Kuldeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors.the Court reiterated the established legal position that when the accused is the legally married husband of the victim, a charge under Section 376 of the IPC cannot be sustained as the aspect of consent within marriage becomes legally irrelevant.
The Court took judicial note of the fact that the parties wished to marry each other against the wishes of their families due to the inter-caste nature of their alliance. The prosecutrix had voluntarily invoked the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which stated that she had solemnized the marriage of her own will and will.
“Therefore, it is clear that the prosecutrix has solemnized the marriage with the petitioner out of her own wish and will, and against the wish and will of her family members. Therefore, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, which constitutes any offence… Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the prosecutrix is an important lady of more than 18 years of age at the time of marriage and she herself has solemnized the marriage with the petitioner on 04.12.2021, lodging of the impugned FIR at a later date amounts to abuse of legal process, therefore, the entire proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR stand quashed and set aside.”said the Court.
Accordingly, the Court held that since the prosecutrix was a senior citizen and the legally married wife of the petitioner, no prima facie case of rape or any other cognizable offense had been established against the petitioner. The late filing of the impugned FIR was considered a gross abuse of the legal process.
“Therefore, it is clear that if the accused is the legally married husband of the victim, the offense of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC is not classified as it is covered by Exception 2 attached to Section 375 IPC.”he said.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the miscellaneous criminal petition and quashed the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR.
Title of the case: XXXX v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. [S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4245/2021]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Defenders Rahul Sharma and Rajneesh Gupta
Respondents: Defenders Vivek Choudhary and Yunus Khan
Click here to read/download the Order