1. Quashing of FIR for rape, extortion, cheating, and criminal conspiracy by legally wedded husband. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 378
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Gajendra Mourya, S/o. Roopnar Mourya – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4245 of 2021
Decided On : 30-03-2026
Important Points
Sexual intercourse by a man with his legally wedded wife, provided she is above fifteen years of age, does not constitute the offence of rape under Exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 375 and 376 - Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, provided the wife is not under fifteen years of age, does not constitute the offence of rape (Paras 12, 13).
(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Where marriage is solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, following all statutory procedures, and the spouse is a major, a subsequent FIR alleging rape by the husband is an abuse of the process of law in light of the statutory exception for marital intercourse (Paras 17, 18).
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed for quashing an F.I.R. registered for offences punishable under Sections 376, 384, 420 and 120B IPC. The parties had solemnized their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, after filing an application, issuance of a one-month notice, and recording of statements before a Marriage Officer. The prosecutrix, a major, subsequently filed the F.I.R. alleging rape and coercion. Both parties had separately approached the Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights and annulment of the marriage.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the marriage was solemnized with mutual consent following the prescribed legal procedure. As the prosecutrix was above the age of majority, the allegations of rape do not fall within the definition of the offence under Section 375 IPC due to the existence of a valid marital relationship.
Issues: Whether the charges of rape under Section 376 IPC can be sustained against a legally wedded husband when the wife is a major, and whether such a proceeding constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: Pursuant to Exception 2 of Section 375 IPC, sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, provided she is above fifteen years of age, is not rape. Since the marriage was legally solemnized and the prosecutrix was a major, no prima facie case of rape was established against the petitioner (Paras 14, 15, 18).
Result: Petition allowed. The proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. stand quashed and set-aside.
(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Where marriage is solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, following all statutory procedures, and the spouse is a major, a subsequent FIR alleging rape by the husband is an abuse of the process of law in light of the statutory exception for marital intercourse (Paras 17, 18).
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed for quashing an F.I.R. registered for offences punishable under Sections 376, 384, 420 and 120B IPC. The parties had solemnized their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, after filing an application, issuance of a one-month notice, and recording of statements before a Marriage Officer. The prosecutrix, a major, subsequently filed the F.I.R. alleging rape and coercion. Both parties had separately approached the Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights and annulment of the marriage.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the marriage was solemnized with mutual consent following the prescribed legal procedure. As the prosecutrix was above the age of majority, the allegations of rape do not fall within the definition of the offence under Section 375 IPC due to the existence of a valid marital relationship.
Issues: Whether the charges of rape under Section 376 IPC can be sustained against a legally wedded husband when the wife is a major, and whether such a proceeding constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: Pursuant to Exception 2 of Section 375 IPC, sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, provided she is above fifteen years of age, is not rape. Since the marriage was legally solemnized and the prosecutrix was a major, no prima facie case of rape was established against the petitioner (Paras 14, 15, 18).
Result: Petition allowed. The proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. stand quashed and set-aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- family law
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Rahul Sharma for Mr.Rajneesh Gupta
For the Respondent: Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr.Yunus Khan
For the Petitioner: Mr.Rahul Sharma for Mr.Rajneesh Gupta
For the Respondent: Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr.Yunus Khan
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: marriage valid, no rape. Prosecutrix: forced marriage, rape committed. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 7 )
3. Prosecutrix was major; marriage solemnized voluntarily under Special Marriage Act. Consent shown. (Para 9 , 16 , 17 )
4. Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC: marital rape exception applies when wife is above 15 years. (Para 14 , 15 )
5. FIR and proceedings quashed. Observations not binding on pending civil appeals. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 )
6. Can a legally wedded husband be charged with rape of his wife?
No, if the wife is above 15 years, Exception 2 of Section 375 IPC exempts sexual acts by a husband with his wife from constituting rape. (Para 14 , 15 )
7. What is the evidentiary weight of a marriage certificate and court marriage procedure?
A marriage certificate issued after due process and no objection indicates voluntary marriage, militating against rape allegations by the spouse. (Para 9 , 16 )
8. Can an FIR for rape be quashed when the marital relationship is established?
Yes, if the wife is not a minor and the marriage is proved, the marital rape exception applies and the FIR is an abuse of process. (Para 17 , 18 )
ORDER :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the impugned F.I.R. No.281/2021 registered at the Police Station Harmada, District Jaipur City (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 384, 420 & 120B IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix ‘SK’ is a major lady, aged around 19 years at the time of filing of this petition and her date of birth is 11.09.2002. She along-with the petitioner submitted an application under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the Act of 1954’) for solemnizing their marriage before the Marriage Officer/ A.D.M. (IV), Jaipur, District Jaipur on 10.03.2021. Counsel submits that at the time of submitting the aforesaid application, the age of the prosecutrix was 18 years and 5 months. Counsel further submits that as per the procedure and provisions contained under the Act of 1954, one month notice was issued to the family members of the petitioner as well as the prosecutrix and thereafter, they re-appeared before the Marriage Officer and submitted their affidavits along-with affidavits of three witnesses. Subsequently, their statements were recorded and after perusal of their affidavits along-with affidavits of the three witnesses who were present, their marriage was solemnized by the Marriage Officer on 12.04.2021 and a Marriage Certificate in this regard was also issued on the same day. Counsel submits that the factum of marriage has not been disputed by the petitioner, but at the later stage, the same was disputed by the respondent- complainant. Hence, both of them approached the Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur, where, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 22 of the Act of 1954 for restitution of conjugal rights, whereas, the respondent- complainant/prosecutrix submitted an application under Section 25 of the Act of 1954 for annulment of the marriage.
3. Counsel submits that the aforementioned applications submitted by the petitioner as well as by the prosecutrix were jointly decided and rejected by the Court of Judge, Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur vide order dated 15.07.2025, against which both of them separately approached this Court by way of filing two different civil miscellaneous appeals and the same are lying pending before this Court for adjudication on merits.
4. Counsel submits that in the meantime, on 03.06.2021, i.e., after almost two months of their marriage, the instant impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the prosecutrix with vague allegations stating therein that the petitioner has been committing rape upon her for last more than one month and on 12.04.2021, i.e., on the day of their marriage, rape was again committed upon her and she was blackmailed to sign the marriage papers before the Marriage Officer/ ADM (IV), Jaipur, District Jaipur. Counsel submits that the aforesaid story is highly unbelievable and has been created by the prosecutrix. Counsel further submits that the prosecutrix is legally wedded wife of the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, the alleged offence is not made out against the petitioner.
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608.
6. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed and set- aside.
7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R., the complainant-respondent was a minor at the time of solemnization of the marriage under the Act of 1954 and rape was committed upon her one month before the lodging of the impugned F.
