The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an FIR under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged in the context of a marital dispute and lacking any contemporaneous allegation, constitutes a clear misuse of criminal process. The Court quashed the FIR after finding that the allegations were vague, delayed, and inconsistent with prior legal proceedings initiated by the complainant.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar Thakurani, was named in FIR No. 763/2019 dated 18.09.2019 registered at Police Station Madhav Nagar, District Katni, for an alleged offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant, respondent No. 2, is his wife. The couple was married on 12.02.2003 under Hindu rites and customs. For over 16 years, from 2003 to May 2019, no serious complaints were raised between them, despite occasional domestic quarrels.
Key Facts
- The alleged incident under Section 377 is claimed to have occurred on 22.07.2019.
- On 14.07.2019, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint leading to FIR No. 512/2019 under Sections 294, 323, and 506 IPC, alleging harassment and criminal intimidation.
- The petitioner was acquitted in that case by judgment dated 05.03.2020, as respondent No. 2 herself failed to support the prosecution.
- On 01.08.2019, respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, wherein she referenced the date 22.07.2019 but made no mention whatsoever of any unnatural sexual act.
- On 23.07.2019, respondent No. 2 submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Sagar, regarding domestic issues. The complaint, filed one day after the alleged incident, contained no reference to Section 377 IPC.
- In her police statement recorded in connection with the 23.07.2019 complaint, respondent No. 2 expressed willingness to live with the petitioner and again made no allegation under Section 377.
- The FIR under Section 377 was registered on 18.09.2019, nearly seven weeks after the alleged incident.
- The FIR contained no specific details regarding the time, place, manner, or circumstances of the alleged act.
Procedural History
- 14.07.2019: FIR No. 512/2019 registered under Sections 294, 323, 506 IPC.
- 22.07.2019: Alleged incident under Section 377 IPC.
- 23.07.2019: Complaint filed with Superintendent of Police, Sagar - no Section 377 allegation.
- 01.08.2019: Section 125 Cr.P.C. application filed - no Section 377 allegation.
- 05.03.2020: Acquittal in FIR No. 512/2019.
- 18.09.2019: FIR No. 763/2019 registered under Section 377 IPC.
- 23.03.2026: Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. decided by the High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 763/2019, the charge-sheet, and all consequential proceedings on grounds of abuse of process, vagueness, and lack of prima facie case.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an FIR under Section 377 of the IPC, alleging non-consensual unnatural sexual acts between spouses, can sustain criminal prosecution where the allegation is raised for the first time weeks after the purported incident, and where no such allegation was made in multiple prior legal proceedings initiated by the same complainant.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned Senior Counsel argued that the delay in raising the allegation, coupled with its absence in all prior complaints and applications, demonstrated that the FIR was an afterthought and retaliatory. He relied on judgments of coordinate benches of this Court - Manish Sahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Umang Singhar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Shubham Mangal v. State of Madhya Pradesh - which held that consensual acts between adults, even if unnatural, do not constitute an offence under Section 377 IPC. He further submitted that marital sexual relations, even if non-consensual, are not criminalized under Section 377 in light of the exclusion of marital rape from Section 375 IPC and the absence of any statutory recognition of marital rape.
For the Respondent/State
The State Advocate contended that the act alleged, if proven, constituted an offence under Section 377 IPC regardless of marital status. He relied on Banti Jatav v. State of Madhya Pradesh to argue that the Court should not interfere at the FIR stage unless the allegations are patently false or legally impossible.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the timeline of events and found that the complainant had initiated multiple legal proceedings between 14.07.2019 and 01.08.2019, including a maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and a complaint to the Superintendent of Police. In none of these did she mention the alleged unnatural act of 22.07.2019. The Court observed that the omission of such a grave allegation in contemporaneous filings was not an oversight but indicative of its fabrication.
"The allegations made in the FIR are general and omnibus in nature, lacking specific particulars regarding time, manner, and circumstances of the alleged offence. Such vague allegations, without substantive supporting material, are insufficient to sustain criminal prosecution."
The Court then turned to the legal interpretation of Section 377. It relied on its own earlier judgment in Manish Sahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that consensual sexual acts between adults, whether of the same or different gender, do not fall within the purview of Section 377. The Court further noted that while Section 375 IPC now includes anal penetration as rape, it explicitly excludes marital rape where the wife is above 15 years. The Court reasoned that if the legislature has chosen not to criminalize marital rape under the more specific provision of Section 375, it cannot be inferred that Section 377 was intended to fill that gap.
"Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR would not make out an offence under Section 377 of IPC."
The Court emphasized that the use of criminal law to settle private matrimonial disputes, especially where the allegations are belated and inconsistent, amounts to abuse of process.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court quashed FIR No. 763/2019 dated 18.09.2019 registered at Police Station Madhav Nagar, District Katni, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delayed Allegations Cannot Sustain Section 377 Prosecutions
- Practitioners must challenge FIRs under Section 377 where the allegation surfaces only after prolonged litigation in civil or criminal forums.
- Absence of contemporaneous disclosure in prior complaints or applications is a strong indicator of fabrication.
- Courts will not permit criminal law to be weaponized in matrimonial disputes absent credible, immediate, and consistent allegations.
Marital Context Limits Criminal Liability Under Section 377
- The Court’s reasoning reinforces that Section 377 cannot be invoked to criminalize sexual acts between spouses, even if non-consensual, given the legislative exclusion of marital rape from Section 375 IPC.
- This creates a de facto immunity for marital sexual conduct under Section 377, regardless of consent, unless coercion or violence extends beyond the marital sphere.
- Legal practitioners should argue that Section 377 is not a residual provision to criminalize marital conduct not covered by other statutes.
Abuse of Inherent Powers Under Section 482 CrPC Is Validated
- The High Court reaffirmed that Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash FIRs based on inconsistent timelines and lack of prima facie evidence.
- This judgment provides a clear precedent for quashing Section 377 FIRs in matrimonial contexts where the complainant’s conduct undermines the credibility of the allegation.
