Rajasthan HC Quashes Rape FIR Against Husband Who Married Under Special Marriage Act, Finds Charges Abuse of Process

Rajasthan High Court quashes FIR lodged three years after a registered inter-religious marriage, holding rape charge unsustainable against a legally wedded husband under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC.

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has quashed an FIR and all proceedings arising from it against a man accused of rape, drugging, and witch-hunting by a woman who had herself married him under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 three years before the complaint was filed. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly, held that because the petitioner was the prosecutrix's legally wedded husband, the rape allegation was barred by Exception 2 appended to Section 375 IPC, and that the remaining charges also disclosed no prima facie case. The court found the registration of FIR No.299/2025 at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, District Sikar, to be an abuse of the process of law, and allowed the quashing petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Marriage, Protection Petition, and Then an FIR

Rafik Alam, a resident of Sawai Madhopur then residing in Jaipur, married the prosecutrix on 21 November 2022 before the Marriage Officer-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur. The marriage was an inter-religious union solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and a certificate was issued the same day. At the time of marriage the prosecutrix was a divorcee, having already dissolved her earlier union.

The couple anticipated hostility from their families. Shortly after the marriage, both the petitioner and the prosecutrix jointly filed S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.812/2022 before the Rajasthan High Court seeking protection of their life and liberty from family members. They also approached the concerned authorities for protection.

From the marriage a daughter “M” was born on 14 October 2024. Photographs on record showed the prosecutrix living with the petitioner's family. The court noted that around one year after the child's birth and roughly three years after the marriage, the prosecutrix lodged FIR No.299/2025 at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Sikar, levelling allegations that the petitioner had administered drugs and medicines, practised black magic to dissolve her earlier marriage, and had compelled her to marry him against her will, and had thereafter raped and sexually exploited her.

The FIR registered offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 384, 376(2)(n), 344, 327, 328, 120B and 376D IPC, and under Section 6(2) of the Rajasthan Prevention of Witch-Hunting Act, 2015. After investigation the police filed a charge sheet, and the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar, rejected a discharge application and framed charges under Sections 419, 420, 384, 327, 344, 328 and 120B IPC and Section 6(2) of the Witch-Hunting Act.

Whether the Quashing Petition Survived the Framing of Charges

The State and the prosecutrix raised a threshold objection: once charges had been framed, the quashing petition had become infructuous and ought to be dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner countered this by placing reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mukesh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., decided in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.12354/2024 on 29 November 2024.

The petitioner's counsel argued that under the ratio in Mukesh, a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash an FIR does not become infructuous merely because a charge sheet has been filed or charges have been framed, provided the challenge is grounded in abuse of the process of law. The court accepted this position and proceeded to examine the merits.

Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC and the Marital Rape Exemption

The central legal question was whether the rape allegation could survive against a man who was the prosecutrix's lawfully married husband at the time of the alleged acts. The court set out both the pre-2013 and the post-amendment text of Section 375 IPC in full. Under both versions, Exception 2 provides that sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age (raised to eighteen in certain constructions), do not constitute rape.

Justice Dhand referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 791, which had held that in light of Exception 2 of Section 375 IPC, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a husband with his wife, the wife not being a minor, do not constitute rape, making consent within marriage legally immaterial for the purpose of prosecuting such acts as rape.

The court then quoted extensively from the Supreme Court's more recent judgment in Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., SLP (Civil) No.13277 of 2023, decided on 31 January 2025. That case involved a strikingly similar factual matrix: an inter-faith couple who had jointly sought protection, followed by a rape FIR after the wife later changed her position. The Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh quashed the FIR, holding that once it was established that the victim had solemnised the marriage of her own free will, a charge under Section 376 IPC could not be sustained against the husband by virtue of Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC. The conduct of the complainant and victim in failing to contest the proceedings was described by the apex court as reflective of a “dead case where no purpose shall be served” in continuing criminal proceedings.

Court's Assessment of Facts and the Remaining Charges

Applying those principles, the court found on the record before it that the prosecutrix was a major at the time of marriage on 21 November 2022. She had herself solemnised the marriage before the Marriage Officer. The couple had jointly filed a protection writ petition. A child was born from the wedlock in October 2024. The FIR was filed approximately three years after the marriage and approximately one year after the birth of the daughter.

The court characterised the allegations of drugs, medicines, and black magic as a “concocted story” created by the prosecutrix after a change of mind, noting the vagueness of those allegations against the backdrop of the documented matrimonial history.

On the rape charge specifically, the court held that because the petitioner was the legally wedded husband and the prosecutrix was above 18 years of age at the time of marriage, the offence under Section 376 IPC was not made out, as Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC applied. On the remaining charges — Sections 419, 420, 384, 327, 344, 328, 120B IPC and Section 6(2) of the Rajasthan Prevention of Witch-Hunting Act, 2015 — the court held that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner on those counts either, considering the overall facts and circumstances.

The court concluded that registration of FIR No.299/2025 was nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

Outcome

By order dated 17 July 2026, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand allowed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.5664/2025 in its entirety. The entire proceedings arising out of FIR No.299/2025 registered at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, District Sikar, were quashed and set aside. The stay application and all other pending applications in the petition were disposed of.