MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Shubham Mangal – Petitioner
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others – Respondent
Misc. Criminal Case No. 54650 of 2023
Decided on 7.1.2026
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 498A, 376(2)(n), 377, 323 and 294 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Cruelty, rape and hurt – Cognizance of offences – There is no allegation of demand of dowry – There is no previous complaint of any sort annexed with charge-sheet – Respondent-wife acted inappropriately and owes distinct relation with other persons as well as was throughout living peacefully and only when petitioner interdicted in her life to seek answersinstant prosecution came to be lodged against petitioner – Prosecutrix/respondent recently preferred application u/s. 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance before court of Principal Judge, Family Court,and despite being a professional, qualified and working lady, only to create pressure of multiple cases against petitioner – Forced unnatural sex by a husband on his wife amounts to cruelty under Section 498A IPC , but cannot be prosecuted as rape under Section 376 IPC – Offence alleged against petitioner under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 of IPC hereby quashed – However, offence under Sections 323, 294 and 498-A hereby maintained. (Paras 10, 14, 16, 17, 18, 27 and 33)
Result: Petition partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
(ORDER)
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing/challenging the validity of the charge sheet No.656/2013 filed in relations to FIR registered at Crime No.971/2023 at Police Station Kotwali, District Morena for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 376(2)(n), 377, 323, 294 of the IPC wherefore, the JMFC, Morena has taken cognizance of the offences vide order dated 25.11.2023 in RCT No. 2314/2023 and setting aside of all other consequential proceedings arising therewith qua the present petitioner in relation to the aforesaid crime number as well as case number.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner Shubham Mangal and respondent no.2/prosecutrix entered into wedlock on dated 26.06.2022 wherein the parents of the respondent no.2 on their own volition & capacity gave rupees to the tune of Rs. 21 lakhs & 15 tola gold in marriage. After some days, the petitioner& respondent no.2 started quarrelling on trivial issues and it is alleged that petitioner used to exert violence on the private respondent No.2. It is further alleged that on dated 01.03.2023, when the petitioner went for a meeting to Indore accompanying respondent no.2, in the morning they had fight and when the petitioner came back from the meeting at around 08.00 PM, where the respondent no.2 was sitting in the temple and petitioner asked her to get back home, wherein as he was afraid, she refused to go and it is alleged that petitioner smashed the head of the respondent no.2 on the wall and assaulted her due to which she suffered injuries, wherefore, she came to her maternal house and reported the incident at Mahila Thana Padav, Gwalior wherein after counselling, the dispute was subsided and she went back to her matrimonial home. Further, it is also alleged that petitioner used to forcefully make physical relation with respondent no.2 & has also against her will, committed unnatural acts on many occasions against her .It is further alleged that on 28.08.2023, despite respondent no.2’s refusal, the petitioner hurled abuses and assaulted her, of which she complained to her sister Gunjan & mother Manju Mittal and she was counselled to report the same, on the basis of which the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 971/2023 came to be registered at P.S.-Kotwali, District Morena (M.P.) on dated01.10.2023 for the offences alleged u/s. 498A, 376(2)(n), 377,-323, 294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. During the pendency of the investigation, the petitioner at the very inception preferred a quashment petition u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. 1973 which came to be withdrawn at the every outset with liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars with the aid of charge sheet vide order dated 26.10.2023 passed in MCRC No. 48394/2023 and subsequently preferred bail application u/s. 438 of Cr.P.C. 1973 before learned trial court which was dismissed and assailed before the Hon’ble Court wherein the Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide order dated 02.11.2023 passed in MCRC No. 49316/2023.
4. Along with the disposal of the anticipatory bail application preferred by the petitioner, there was also a petition preferred by the prosecutrix/respondent for arresting the petitioner, but as the relief of anticipatory bail was granted in the favor of petitioner, therefore, the said petition on behalf of prosecutrix/respondent came to be dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 02.11.2023 passed in MCRC No. 49439/2023.
5. Henceforth, in the conspectus of the aforesaid and being disconsolate as well as crestfallen by the impugned F.I.R. & corollary charge sheet filed wherein cognizance was taken & as the entire proceedings is a matter of counterblast to divorce & other proceedings previously instituted by the petitioner coupled with the factum that only to settle personal scores & to harass the petitioner wherein none of the alleged offences prima facie is made out even if the entir
Cruelty, rape and hurt – Forced unnatural sex by a husband on his wife amounts to cruelty under Section 498A IPC , but cannot be prosecuted as rape under Section 376 IPC.
The FIR was quashed as the allegations did not constitute an offence under IPC Sections 375 and 377 due to the marital relationship.
The court quashed criminal proceedings due to vague allegations and emphasized the need for specific claims in matrimonial disputes to prevent abuse of legal processes.
If a man and a woman indulged in anal sex with their free consent in private, no offence under Section 377 IPC is made out.
The court held that Sections 375 and 377 IPC do not apply to marital relationships, and a dying declaration must inspire full confidence and be corroborated to support a conviction.
The court established that allegations of sexual offences between spouses are governed by Section 375 and its exceptions, and that vague allegations do not suffice to constitute cruelty under Section....
The court quashed the FIR against the husband and family members, finding the allegations of dowry and unnatural acts to be false and motivated by the wife's desire to retaliate against divorce proce....
It is necessary to examine FIR, statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate First Class to find out correct factual matrix of issue - Sum and substance of decis....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.