It stands to reason and is entirely in the fitness of things that the Rajasthan High Court Bench at Jaipur in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled XXXX v. State of Rajasthan & Anr in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4245/2021 that was pronounced recently on 30.03.2026 has quashed a First Information Report (F.I.R.) registered against a husband for the offences of rape, extortion, cheating and criminal conspiracy at the Police Station Harmada in District Jaipur City (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 384, 420 and 120B IPC observing that the criminal proceedings amounted to a gross abuse of the process of law. It was held by the Bench that since the prosecutrix was an adult who had voluntarily solemnized an inter-caste marriage with the petitioner under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the relationship was protected under Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It must be noted that the Court underscored that when an accused is the legally wedded husband of a victim who has attained the age of majority, sexual intercourse between them does not constitute the offence of rape, thereby rendering subsequent allegations of non-consent or coercion legally unsustainable.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand of Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the impugned registered at the Police Station Harmada, District Jaipur City (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 384, 420 & 120B IPC.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, “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 . 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.”
As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 3 that, “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.”
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 8 that, “Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 9 that, “Perusal of the record indicates that date of birth of the prosecutrix is 11.09.2002 and she along-with the petitioner approached the Marriage Officer/ A.D.M. (IV), Jaipur, District Jaipur by way of filing an application under Section 5 of the Act of 1954 showing their intention to get married. The Marriage Officer, after following the procedure and provisions contained under the Act of 1954, issued one month notice to all the concerned parties inviting their objections, if any, against the marriage of the petitioner & the prosecutrix. When no objections were submitted by anyone, the petitioner as well as the prosecutrix along-with three witnesses appeared before the Marriage Office/ ADM (IV), Jaipur, District Jaipur after completion of 30 days, i.e., on 12.04.2021, wherein their statements were recorded and their affidavits were also perused and after being satisfied from all four corners, the Marriage Officer solemnized their marriage and issued a Marriage Certificate in this regard on the same day, i.e., on 12.04.2021. Photographs have also been enclosed along-with the instant petition, which indicate that their marriage was solemnized with mutual consent. However, it appears that subsequently, the prosecutrix has changed her mind and lodged the instant F.I.R., after a lapse of around two months from the date of solemnization of their marriage, wherein the allegations of rape have been levelled against the petitioner. Further allegations have been levelled stating that the petitioner was sexually assaulting her continuously for last more than one month.” As things stands, the Bench points out in para 10 that, “The documents annexed with the instant petition further indicate that the prosecutrix has submitted an application under Section 25 of the Act of 1954 seeking annulment her marriage with the petitioner before the Family Court on 28.04.2022 and in the meanwhile, the petitioner has submitted an application under Section 22 of the Act of 1954 on 07.07.2021 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur vide its judgment dated 15.07.2025 jointly decided and rejected both the applications submitted by the parties. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, both the parties have separately approached this Court by way of filing two different misc. appeals and the said appeals are still lying pending for adjudication on merits.”
It merits noting that while citing the relevant case law, the Bench specifies in para 14 stating that, “Upon perusal of the definition of the term ‘Rape’ under Section 375 IPC, it is evident that the said offence has been expansively defined under the IPC. As per this expansive definition, sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife would not constitute the offence of rape, if she is above 15 years of age. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India reported in (2018) 1 SCC 791 has held that in the light of Exception 2 of Section 375 IPC, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a husband with his wife (not being a minor) do not constitute rape, thereby rendering the aspect of consent within marriage legally immaterial for the purpose of prosecuting such acts as rape.”
Briefly stated, while citing a recent and relevant Apex Court ruling titled Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. while deciding SLP (Civil) No.13277 of 2023 vide judgment dated 31.01.2025, the Bench states in para 15 that, “Hence, it is clear that if the accused is legally wedded husband of the victim, the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC is not made out as he is covered under Exception 2 appended to Section 375 IPC.”
Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates in para 16 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “It appears that the petitioner and the prosecutrix desired to marry each other, however, their parents were not accepting their matrimony because they were solemnizing an inter-caste marriage. Therefore, the petitioner and prosecutrix while invoking the process of solemnizing Court marriage under the Act of 1954. Accordingly, applied for marriage before the Marriage Officer/ADM (IV), Jaipur, District Jaipur and thereafter, one month notice was issued to all the concerned parties inviting their objections, if any, against their marriage. When no objection was received, their marriage was solemnized by the Marriage Officer ADM (IV), Jaipur, District Jaipur. Hence, it is clear that the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with the petitioner of her own wish and will, and against the wish and will of her family members. Hence, no prima facie case is made against the petitioner constituting any offence.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 17 that, “Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the prosecutrix is a major lady of the age of above 18 years at the time of marriage and she herself has solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 12.04.2021, lodging of the impugned F.I.R. on subsequent date amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, the entire proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. stand quashed and set-aside.”
As a corollary, the Bench then directs and holds in para 18 that, “In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner under Section 376 IPC as the prosecutrix has attained the age of majority and is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. No offence of rape is made out against the legally wedded husband such as the petitioner.”
Resultantly, the Bench then directs and holds in para 19 that, “Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands allowed. The proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. No.281/2021 registered at Police Station Harmada, District Jaipur City (West) against the petitioner stand quashed and set-aside.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench notes in para 20 that, “The stay application and all pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 21 that, “Before parting with this order, this Court observes that the finding of fact recorded by this Court is confined to disposal of the instant petition and for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. and the same would not have any bearing on the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 22 of the Act of 1954 as well by the prosecutrix under Section 25 of the Act of 1954. The concerned Court would decide the same on their merits independently, after hearing the arguments raised by the respective parties.”
In sum, we thus see that the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has made it indubitably clear in this notable judgment that the criminal proceedings by the wife against her husband amounted to a gross abuse of the process of law. The court took into account the irrefutable fact that the wife had solemnized the marriage with her husband of her own free will and against the wish of her family. In such a situation, how could a “rape case” be then made out against the husband? So the rape case and other charges against the husband were thus quashed by the Court. Very rightly so!
Author Bio
