IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Subhan Ali - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application No. 272 of 2018 (Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)
Decided on : 20-09-2022
Criminal Case - Offences under Section 376A of the IPC - Section 376A, Section 376B - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 376A and Section 376B of the IPC and their applicability to the case. It highlighted the distinction between the two sections and their specific intent and social purpose. The court emphasized the use of the term 'woman' in Section 376A and 'wife' in Section 376B, and the different quantification of punishment under each section. The judgment also referred to Explanation 2 of Section 375 to differentiate between the two sections.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the registration of a criminal case against the applicant for offences under Section 376A of the IPC. The complainant, an ex-wife of the applicant, alleged sexual intercourse without her consent under the false assurance of remarriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the chargesheet under Section 376A was defective and in contravention of the basic intention of the section. It concluded that the cognizance taken by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was not sustainable due to non-application of mind and ordered the chargesheet and criminal proceedings to be quashed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of Section 376A and Section 376B to the case, the validity of the chargesheet, and the sustainability of the cognizance taken by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 376A and Section 376B, the distinction between the two sections, and the non-application of mind by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Final Decision: The C482 Application was allowed, and the chargesheet and criminal proceedings were quashed. The matter was remitted back to the Investigating Officer for re-conducting the investigation and submitting a fresh chargesheet if required.
JUDGMENT :
A very peculiar and a distinct situation, which has emerged for consideration is in the light of the arguments which has been extended by the learned counsel for the applicant, that the cognizance, which has been taken by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for the offences under Section 376A of the IPC as against the present applicant by way of registration of Criminal Case No. 3954 of 2017, State Vs. Subhan Ali, is apparently not made out, and the entire investigation is vitiated from its inception.
2. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant, is that the provisions contained under Section 376A, was substituted by Section 9 of Act No. 13 of 2013 w.e.f. from 3rd February 2013. As an effect of substitution of Section 376A, would only be attracted in those cases where on account of an act of an offence under Section 376 (2) of the IPC, it results into causing of death of a woman or causes a “woman” to be in persistent vegetative state. The word “woman” used herein under Section 376A would be a general term, the literal meaning of which as per the Oxford English dictionary would mean as under:-
3. Whereas under literal meaning, would be a spouse, having legally married to man, recognized by the society to be a female who is legally entitled to bear a child, in a biological act of procreation. Thus in the dictionary ‘wife’ has been defined as under:-
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant, that under either of the circumstances the offences under Section 376A, would not be made out against the applicant as the legislature has used the word ‘woman’, and the woman herein cannot be substituted to be read as ‘wife’.
5. As the factual drop of the present case goes it is that the complainant respondent No. 3, herein admittedly was a married wife of the present applicant, there had been a valid divorce between them and as per the allegations levelled in the FIR, it is contended by the complainant respondent No. 3 herein, that under an assurance to re-marry, the ex-husband i.e. the applicant herein, had committed an offence of sexual intercourse without her consent and in that eventuality, it was alleged that he was liable to be punished for the aforesaid offences as contained under Section 376A for which the FIR was got registered, being FIR No. 294 of 2017 at P.S. Chowki Basfodan, Tehsil, Kashipur, district Udham Singh Nagar.
6. A reference to the contents of the FIR becomes relevant for consideration, because it deciphers the fact of marriage, the fact of commission of offence and the fact of a discontinuance of relationship of husband and wife.
2- ;g fd okD;k fnukad 23-4-17 dh jkf= djhc 1-00 cts dks gS eqfYteku uaŒ1 lqHkku vius lkFk eqfyt uaŒ2 vQrj vyh] eqfyt uaŒ
Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between Section 376A and Section 376B of the IPC, their specific intent and social purpose, and the requirement for the court to ap....
Section 354A of the IPC is gender-specific and cannot be applied to female accused, necessitating quashing of charges lacking specific allegations.
Point of Law : A brutal act of sexual assault on the wife, against her consent, albeit by the husband, cannot but be termed to be a rape.
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 criminal proceedings due to vague allegations and emphasized the need for specific claims in matrimonial disputes to prevent abuse of legal processes.
A husband cannot be prosecuted under Section 377 IPC for consensual acts with his wife, but charges under the POCSO Act may apply based on the nature of the allegations.
The presence of consent in a consensual relationship, even after the complainant knew the accused was married, negated the offense under Section 376 of the IPC.
Separate charges are necessary for distinct offences under Sections 306 and 498A IPC; failure to provide a charge results in a failure of justice.
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.