Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in Kuldeep Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. [2025 INSC 137], addressed a crucial issue concerning the quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case involved a dispute regarding an alleged forced marriage, subsequent allegations of rape, and a protection order sought by the couple. The Court’s ruling clarifies the application of Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC and reinforces the judicial principles governing quashing of FIRs in matrimonial disputes.
Case Background
The case arose from an FIR No. 148 dated 14.06.2022, registered under Sections 366, 376, and 506 IPC, on the complaint of Respondent No. 2, who was the cousin of the victim (Respondent No. 3). The allegations stated that the victim was abducted and forced into marriage by the appellant, Kuldeep Singh.
However, the appellant contended that he and the victim had willingly married on 15.06.2022 as per Sikh rites. The couple had filed a petition (CRWP No. 5913 of 2022) before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, seeking protection against threats from the victim’s family, and the High Court granted them protection on 21.06.2022. Subsequently, the victim returned to her parental home, following which she recorded a statement under Section 164 CrPC, alleging rape and forced marriage.
Legal Issues
- Whether the allegations of rape against the legally wedded husband could be sustained in light of Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC.
- Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s petition for quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether the continuation of proceedings served any legal purpose given the victim’s contradictory statements.
Supreme Court’s Observations
1. Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC
The Court noted that Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC states that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife is not rape, provided the wife is not below 18 years of age. Since the victim was the legally wedded wife of the appellant, and there was no claim that she was a minor, the charge of rape was legally unsustainable.
2. Inconsistencies in the Victim’s Statements
The Court highlighted contradictions in the victim’s stance:
- Initially, she had willingly filed a protection petition with the appellant.
- Later, she accused him of rape and forced marriage.
- In her response to the appellant’s restitution of conjugal rights petition, she made no allegations of rape.
- Neither she nor the complainant appeared before the Supreme Court despite sufficient service of notice.
The Court inferred that the case lacked prosecutable evidence and was driven by extraneous factors.
3. Quashing of the FIR and Criminal Proceedings
Referring to the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Court ruled that the FIR was an abuse of process of law. It emphasized that criminal law should not be misused to settle personal disputes, especially when a Special Investigation Team (SIT) had already exonerated other accused persons and found no coercion in the marriage.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the FIR No. 148 of 2022, and set aside the High Court’s order. It reiterated that matrimonial disputes should not be criminalized without concrete evidence and reaffirmed the importance of protecting individuals from malicious prosecutions. The ruling is significant in safeguarding individuals from false allegations in marriage-related disputes while ensuring judicial efficiency.
References
- Kuldeep Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors., 2025 INSC 137.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 375, 376, 366, 506).
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 164, 173, 482).
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335).
- Punjab & Haryana High Court Order in CRWP No. 5913 of 2022.