Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. Before moving forward, we find it relevant to note here that neither Respondent No. 2, i.e. the complainant nor Respondent No. 3, i.e. the victim has entered appearance before this Court despite sufficient service of notice.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and Respondent No. 1-State and also perused the material on record.
12. It has been submitted by the appellant that he is the legally wedded husband of Respondent No. 3 and therefore no offence under Section 376 of IPC is made out against him since he is covered under Exception No. 2 appended to Section 375 of IPC. The appellant has also brought to our notice the written statement dated 01.08.2023 filed by the Respondent No. 3 in the matter of restitution of conjugal rights and highlighted that she has nowhere made any allegations pertaining to rape against the appellant in the said written statement.
13. It would be relevant to refer to Annexure P-3 which is an order passed by Ld. Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CRWP No. 5913 of 2022 on 21.06.2022 providing protection to the petitioners therein being the appellant and Respondent No. 3. The said petition had been jointly filed by the appellant and Respondent No. 3 seeking protection from the family members of the Respondent No. 3 as she had married the appellant of her own free will and volition against the wishes of her family members. Moreover, it may also be noted that in the reply filed by the Respondent No. 3 to the appellant’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights, she has not made any allegation of rape or marriage by force against the appellant. Further, the Respondent No. 3 or for that matter Respondent No. 2 despite service of notice, have not come forward to dispute or deny the above facts.
14. Importantly, it must be noted that the case as of now, after the filing of chargesheet, survives only to the extent of allegations under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC as it was established during the inquiry that the victim had solemnised the marriage with the appellant out of her own free will.
15. In this regard, it has been rightly pointed out by the appellant that as per Exception 2 under Section 375 of IPC, sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife cannot be termed as rape and, hence, a [2025] 1 S.C.R. Kuldeep Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors. charge under Section 376 of IPC cannot be sustained against the appellant. Further, the conduct of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 in failing to enter appearance despite sufficient notice is reflective of the fact that it is a dead case where no purpose shall be served in continuing the criminal proceedings alleging charges of rape against the appellant.
16. As such, given the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that no prima facie case constituting any offence is made out against the appellant and he is entitled to the relief sought.
17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The impugned FIR No. 148 of 2022 dated 14.06.2022 filed before the P.S. Model Town, Hoshiarpur, Punjab against the appellant and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Result of the case: Appeal allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan