Shubham Mangal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 375, 376(2)(n), 377, 498A - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Quashing of charge sheet - Marital rape exception - Interplay between Section 375 and Section 377 - Sexual intercourse by husband with wife - Where the wife is a major, the marital exception to Section 375 applies, making a charge under Section 376 not sustainable - The expanded definition of rape under Section 375, post-2013 amendment, includes acts previously covered under Section 377 - A legal repugnancy exists between the marital exception in Section 375 and the applicability of Section 377 in a heterosexual marital context - Forced unnatural sex by a husband on his wife may be prosecuted as cruelty under Section 498A, but cannot be prosecuted as rape under Section 376 or as an unnatural offence under Section 377. (Paras 21, 26, 27, 28, and 29)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Proceedings that are manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused due to private and personal grudge may be quashed to secure the ends of justice. (Para 30)

Facts of the case:
A petition was filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet involving offences under Sections 498A, 376(2)(n), 377, 323, and 294 of the IPC. The prosecutrix alleged physical assault and forced unnatural physical relations. The petitioner husband contended that the FIR was a counterblast to divorce proceedings previously instituted by him and that the allegations were fictitious. Medical examination reports did not indicate any evidence of unnatural sex.

Findings of Court:
The court found that since the wife was a major, sexual intercourse between the husband and wife falls within the marital exception of Section 375 IPC, thus Section 376 IPC is not attracted. Furthermore, the court observed that the current definition of rape is expansive enough to cover acts previously termed 'unnatural' under Section 377, creating a repugnancy if Section 377 were applied to spouses. The court also noted the absence of medical evidence supporting the allegations of unnatural sex.

Issues: Whether an offence of unnatural sex under Section 377 IPC can be sustained against a husband in relation to his wife, and if such acts are covered by the marital exception provided under Section 375 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that post-2013 amendments to Section 375 IPC provide an express marital exception for sexual intercourse with a major wife. Because the definition of rape now includes penetrative acts that were previously the subject of Section 377, it would be repugnant to treat such acts as criminal under Section 377 when they are excluded from criminal liability under Section 375 in a marital context. Such acts may constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC, but not rape or an unnatural offence.

Result: Petition partly allowed to the extent that offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 of the IPC are quashed; offences under Sections 323, 294, and 498-A are maintained.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Quashing of charge-sheet under Sections 498A, 376(2)(n), 377, 323, 294 IPC in a matrimonial dispute. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Petitioner argued marital rape exception and malicious prosecution; State and respondent opposed quashing. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )

3. Partly allowed: quashed Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 IPC; maintained Sections 323, 294, and 498-A IPC. (Para 33 )

4. Whether Section 377 IPC offence between husband and wife is made out in light of the marital rape exception under Section 375 IPC?

No. Due to the marital rape exception, Section 376 and 377 offences are not attracted between husband and wife, as the amended Section 375 renders such acts non-criminal. (Para 21 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 29 )

5. What is the effect of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 on the offence of unnatural sex under Section 377 IPC between spouses?

The amended definition of rape in Section 375 makes many acts formerly under Section 377 not 'against the order of nature', creating repugnancy; the later enactment abrogates the earlier one for spouses. (Para 28 , 29 )

6. Can a criminal proceeding be quashed if it is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive?

Yes, under Bhajan Lal guidelines, a proceeding manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted to wreak vengeance can be quashed. (Para 30 )

ORDER :

RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. 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 i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 659

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Shubham Mangal – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
MISC. Criminal Case No. 54650 of 2023
Decided On : 07-01-2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Whether Section 377 IPC offence between husband and wife is made out in light of the marital rape exception under Section 375 IPC?

5. What is the effect of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 on the offence of unnatural sex under Section 377 IPC between spouses?

6. Can a criminal proceeding be quashed if it is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 659

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIORRAJESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.Shubham Mangal – Petitioner Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – RespondentsMISC. Criminal Case No. 54650 of 2023 Decided On : 07-01-2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Whether Section 377 IPC offence between husband and wife is made out in light of the marital rape exception under Section 375 IPC?

5. What is the effect of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 on the offence of unnatural sex under Section 377 IPC between spouses?

6. Can a criminal proceeding be quashed if it is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive?

Cases Referred (3)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Shubham Mangal – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
MISC. Criminal Case No. 54650 of 2023
Decided On : 07-01-2026