Marital relations exempt the application of Section 377 IPC; allegations pertaining to violence or dowry warrant serious scrutiny, supporting charges under Section 498-A IPC.

ORDER :

PREM NARAYAN SINGH, J.

Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2 . This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioners for quashment of the FIR bearing Crime No.407/2023, dated 24.08.2023, registered at Police Station-Shyamgarh, District - Mandsaur, under Sections 377 , 498-A, 294, 506 of IPC, 1860 and the consequential proceedings.

3 . As per the prosecution story, on 23.08.2023, complainant gave a written complaint stating that the marriage of the petitioner no.1. was solemnized with her on 09.12.2021 in the Court at Nainital. After marriage she started residing at her matrimonial house and discharging her duties as a daughter-in- law. Further allegation is that petitioner no.1 has committed unnatural sex with the complainant on 09.01.2022 due to which she got mouth infection and was under treatment. The complainant was compelled to abort her pregnancy by the petitioners. It was alleged that the petitioners demanded Rs.20.00 lakhs as dowry and also used to torture her verbally and physically for not fulfilling their demands. Therefore being aggrieved the complainant has filed a complaint.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations are prima facie false, and have been levelled against the petitioners only to give criminal angle to the matrimonial dispute. Allegation of unnatural sex by petitioner no. 1 is unequivocally false and the petitioner no.1 and complainant were in happy marriage. There is no material on record put by the complainant to substantiate her baseless and frivolous allegations and the provisions of Section 377 has been inserted in the said FIR with mala fide intention to harass the petitioner, in order to secure vengeance against the petitioner no.1 and his family members which solely arises out of matrimonial dispute. The act of unnatural sex by a husband with his legally wedded wife residing with him is not an offence under Section 377 of IPC, as held by Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in the case of Umang Singhar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023 SCC Onlie MP 3221) and Manish Sahu vs. State of M.P. & Anr. (M.Cr.C. No.8388/2023). There is a significant delay of 1 year and 9 months in lodging the FIR without any proper explanation for the inordinate delay. No medical report was furnished to substantiate the claim that complainant got mouth infection and was under treatment. Counsel further relied upon the case of Kailash Sonkar & Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (W.P. (Crl.)508 of2021) in support of her contentions. The petitioners never made any unreasonable demands and they had a very cordial relationship with the complainant. The petitioners were very supportive and caring towards complainant. At the time of death of complainant's father, petitioner no.1 booked expensive flight tickets for complainant and took over the burden of tickets cost upon him.

5. Counsel further contended that the complainant was an abusive wife who harassed petitioner no.1 husband and alienated him from his family. The decision to return to India was made by the complainant with the intention of lodging false cases against the petitioners. With regard to harassment met by the complainant, it is submitted that even after marriage the complainant did not live with her in-laws at her marital home. The petitioners had a very cordial relationship with the complainant they gifted generously with complainant. Complainant in course of torturing, threaten and harassed petitioner no.1,deliberately made him refrained from talking to his mother, bother, sister and other family members, thereby completely alienated and isolated him from his family members. In relation to abortion claim, the consen