KULDEEP SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                 [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1392 : 2025 INSC 137

                            Kuldeep Singh
                                    v.
                       The State of Punjab & Ors.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2025)
                               31 January 2025
            [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       The accused-appellant’s petition u/s.482 of the Criminal Procedure
       Code, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR u/ss.366, 376 and 506
       of Penal Code, 1860 was dismissed by the High Court.

                                  Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.366, 376 and 506 – Allegation against
       the accused-appellant that he abducted the respondent
       no. 3/victim – FIR u/s.366 IPC was registered – Whereas, it
       was the case of the appellant that he and respondent no. 3
       had married each other – The respondent no. 3 had recorded
       a statement u/s.164 of the Cr.P.C, with the JMFC raising
       allegations of rape against the appellant and also alleged that
       the marriage was solemnised forcibly by the appellant – After
       investigation, the SIT filed the inquiry report – s.366 of IPC was
       deleted and only ss.376 and 506 of IPC survived against the
       appellant as per the charge-sheet – Appellant sought quashing
       of criminal proceedings – The High Court, vide the impugned
       order, had dismissed the appellant’s petition – Correctness:
       Held: The appellant has also brought to 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 – There is also an order passed by the
       High Court on 21.06.2022 providing protection to the petitioners
       therein being the appellant and respondent no. 3 – The said
       petition was 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


* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                              1393

              Kuldeep Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors.


     volition against the wishes of her family members – 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 – It must be noted that the case as of now, after the filing of
     charge-sheet, survives only to the extent of allegations u/ss.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 – It has been rightly pointed out by the appellant
     that as per Exception 2 u/s.375 of IPC, sexual intercourse by a
     man with his own wife cannot be termed as rape and, hence, a
     charge u/s.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 – 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 – Thus, the impugned FIR filed against the appellant and all
     consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed.
     [Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]

                                 List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                              List of Keywords
     Rape; Abduction; Quashing of criminal proceedings; Marriage;
     Restitution of conjugal rights; Free will; Exception 2 u/s.375 of IPC;
     Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife; Notice; Appearance.

                             Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     520 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2023 of the High Court
     of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM No. 41161 of 2023

                         Appearances for Parties
     Miss Aanchal Jain, Karan Dewan, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Mohd Irshad, A.A.G., Karan Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
1394                                                        [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

      Vikram Nath, J.

1.    Leave granted.
2.    The instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated
      22.08.2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in
      CRM-M-No. 41161 of 2023 wherein the accused-appellant’s petition
      under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 19731 seeking
      quashing of the FIR No. 148 dated 14.06.2022 under Section 366,
      376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 18602 was dismissed.
3.    Brief facts of the matter are that Respondent No. 2 is the complainant
      and cousin of Respondent No. 3/victim and FIR No. 148 of 2022 was
      lodged by him stating that the victim who was working at National
      Insurance Company and was dropped at her office by the complainant
      on the morning of 13.06.2022. It was stated in the FIR that she had
      left her office at around 1.30 p.m. that afternoon and when she did
      not return, the complainant feared that she has been abducted by
      the appellant herein who was alleged to be harassing her for the
      past few days. Thus, the said FIR was lodged under Section 366 of
      IPC against the appellant.
4.    Whereas, it was the case of the appellant that the appellant and
      Respondent No. 3 had married each other on 15.06.2022 as per
      Sikh rites and ceremonies against the wishes of the relatives of the
      Respondent No. 3 and hence, the said FIR has been lodged against
      him which deserves to be quashed. The appellant had also stated that
      post their marriage in view of the opposition by the family members of
      the Respondent No. 3, the couple had also filed a protection petition
      being CRWP No. 5913 of 2022 dated 16.06.2022 before the High
      Court seeking protection of their life and liberty. The said relief was
      granted by the High Court vide order dated 21.06.2022.
5.    However, the Respondent No. 3 allegedly returned to her parental
      home on 31.08.2022 which had also led to the appellant filing a


1    Cr.P.C.
2    IPC
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                        1395

               Kuldeep Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors.


      Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the
      Family Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights with his legally
      wedded wife, i.e. the Respondent No. 3.
6.    In the meanwhile, the Respondent No. 3 on 01.09.2022 recorded a
      statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C, with the Ld. JMFC raising
      allegations of rape against the appellant and also alleged that the
      marriage has been solemnised forcibly by the appellant. It was further
      alleged that mother and brother of the appellant had also assisted
      the appellant in the commission of said crimes. Accordingly, the
      names of brother and mother of the appellant were also added to
      the FIR along with addition of Sections 363, 120B and 376 of IPC.
7.    Accordingly, the Special Investigation Team 3 consisting of
      Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, Deputy Superintendent of
      Police-Crime against Women and Children, Hoshiarpur and Deputy
      Superintendent of Police-Sub Division City Hoshiarpur had conducted
      investigation in the matter and filed an inquiry report. In furtherance
      of the inquiry report, the police filed the challan dated 01.07.2023
      under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. which stated that from the investigation
      conducted by SIT, allegations levelled by the victim against Kuldeep
      Singh regarding kidnapping and pressurizing her for marriage have
      not been proved as it was found that the victim has solemnised the
      marriage with the appellant with her own consent. It was also found
      that no role can be attributed to the mother or brother of the appellant
      and hence they were completely exonerated as no evidence could
      be collected against them. As such, Section 366 of IPC was deleted
      and only Sections 376 and 506 of IPC survived against the appellant
      as per the chargesheet.
8.    Thereafter, the appellant had preferred CRM-M-No. 41161 of 2023
      dated 18.08.2023 before the High Court seeking quashing of FIR
      No. 148 of 2022 and all consequential proceedings. The High Court,
      vide the impugned order, had dismissed the appellant’s petition while
      holding that the petition lacked any merit and the matter required
      evaluation of evidence and adjudication by the Trial Court.
9.    Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us.


3    SIT
1396                                                        [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


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.                                                      1397

                 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