The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that a marriage between accused and complainant does not automatically immunize the accused from prosecution under Section 376 IPC when consent was obtained through deception. This ruling reinforces that the legal status of marriage cannot override the fundamental requirement of free and informed consent in sexual offences.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Chandrakant Purandare, is accused of repeatedly engaging in sexual relations with the prosecutrix - his colleague and later wife - under the false promise of a legitimate marriage. The prosecutrix, a widow and government servant, alleges that the petitioner exploited her emotional vulnerability, secured her consent through deceit, and continued non-consensual relations even after a ceremonial marriage in an Arya Samaj Mandir on 17.04.2022. The petitioner allegedly assured her that a formal marriage before family would follow, but later renounced the relationship, calling her a "mistress" and assaulting her when she sought legal recognition as his wife.
Procedural History
- 01.01.2022: First alleged non-consensual sexual act occurred at petitioner’s flat in Gwalior
- 17.04.2022: Marriage solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir, but petitioner allegedly misrepresented its legal validity
- 20.04.2023: Petitioner filed divorce petition before Family Court
- 25.04.2023: FIR No. 158/2023 registered under Sections 376, 376(2)(N), and 323 IPC
- RCT No. 4461/2023: Charge-sheet filed; prosecution evidence completed; defence evidence underway
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and pending trial under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that marital status negates the offence of rape and that the FIR was filed with malafide intent to pressure him in divorce proceedings.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether marriage between the accused and the complainant automatically negates the possibility of an offence under Section 376 IPC, particularly when consent was allegedly obtained by deception.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that since the parties were legally married under Hindu rites, sexual relations could not constitute rape under Section 376 IPC. Reliance was placed on Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Ajeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, arguing that marital relationships, even if strained, fall outside the ambit of criminal sexual violence. It was further submitted that the FIR was a retaliatory measure triggered by the petitioner’s divorce petition, making it an abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC.
For the Respondent/State
The State and respondent No. 2 opposed quashing, emphasizing that the allegations involved repeated non-consensual acts, deception, and physical assault. They argued that the validity of marriage and the nature of consent are factual issues requiring evidentiary adjudication. The trial was at an advanced stage, with prosecution evidence closed and defence evidence underway, making interference under Section 482 CrPC inappropriate.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that marriage creates an absolute bar to prosecution under Section 376 IPC. It held that the legal status of marriage does not equate to irrevocable consent to sexual activity, particularly when consent is obtained by fraud or deception. The Court emphasized that Section 376 IPC protects the autonomy and dignity of the individual, regardless of marital status.
"The ingredients of the offence under Section 376 IPC are not excluded merely because the parties are married. If consent was obtained by deception, the act may still constitute rape."
The Court distinguished Kuldeep Singh and Ajeet Singh, noting that those cases involved consensual relations within marriage without allegations of deceit or coercion. In contrast, this case involved specific allegations of false promises, psychological manipulation, and post-marital violence - all of which require evidentiary scrutiny. The Court further held that Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to conduct a mini-trial or to pre-judge credibility. The advanced stage of trial, with prosecution evidence concluded and defence underway, made quashing unjustified and contrary to the principle of finality in criminal proceedings.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that marriage does not preclude prosecution under Section 376 IPC where consent is obtained by deception, and that Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to terminate proceedings at an advanced trial stage when factual disputes remain unresolved.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent by Deception Overrides Marital Status
- Practitioners must now argue that Section 376 IPC applies even within marriage if consent was procured through fraud, false promises, or emotional coercion
- Defence counsel cannot rely solely on marital status to seek quashing; they must address the nature of consent as a factual issue
- Prosecutors should explicitly plead deception as a key ingredient in cases involving marital rape allegations
Section 482 CrPC Cannot Be Used to Pre-Judge Evidence
- Courts will not entertain Section 482 petitions to dismiss rape cases merely because the accused claims the FIR is retaliatory
- Malafide intent must be proven through evidence, not alleged in a quashing petition
- At advanced trial stages, interference under Section 482 CrPC is impermissible unless the allegations are manifestly false or legally unsustainable
Trial Courts Must Scrutinize Marital Consent Claims
- Family courts and criminal courts must coordinate to avoid conflicting findings on marital validity
- Judges must be alert to patterns where marital disputes are weaponized through criminal complaints
- Evidence on the nature of pre-marital promises, post-marital conduct, and psychological pressure must be rigorously examined
