Didn't File Complaint Despite Repeated Forceful Rape, Instead Married The Accused: MP High Court Quashes FIR Holding Prosecutrix's Version Unreliable

Chambers of Ishaan Garg

Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054

+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently quashed a FIR registered for rape and criminal intimidation since the prosecutrix's version that she was forcefully raped repeatedly did not instil confidence in the context of her marriage with the accused. The prosecutrix married the accused-petitioner after the latter allegedly subjected her to multiple acts of rape.

The single-judge bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat held that the prosecutrix's failure to lodge a FIR despite repeated acts of alleged rape seemed doubtful. The subsequent marriage between the accused and the victim made it difficult for any 'reasonable man' to believe the prosecutrix's story, the court opined.

“…From her statement, it is clear that there is no case that prosecutrix has surrendered to petitioner under false promise of marriage but forceful rape has been committed on her. Despite forceful rape being committed by the petitioner on her repeatedly for long time, she did not lodge FIR against petitioner on the contrary she also married the petitioner…”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur observed.

The single-judge bench highlighted how the prosecutrix's version stated that she had never consented to sexual intercourse by believing the false promises of marriage made by the accused on several occasions. After examining the statement of the victim given Section 164 CrPC, the court noted that she opposed the advances made by the accused at all times. Based on the story narrated by the victim, the court noted the reasons why her version seems to be untrustworthy in the end:

“…She did not give any consent for establishing physical relationship. After incident of rape which is said to have occurred, prosecutrix did not lodge any FIR against the petitioner. She remained quite and after incident of rape she has also done marriage with the petitioner in Arya Samaj Mandir….”

Other surrounding circumstances were also against the case of the prosecutrix since her MLC report did not indicate any injuries on her body.

According to the complainant, the marriage solemnised at Arya Samaj was a sham since the husband filed a petition to declare the marriage void within 3 days of the marriage.

The court has quashed the FIR and chargesheet along with allowing the criminal revision against the trial court's order that dismissed the application for discharge.


In October 2022, charges were framed by the trial court under Sections 376(2)(N) and 506-II of IPC against the accused-husband. The application for discharge under S.227/228 Cr. P.C was dismissed by the trial court. Against the FIR and the framing of charges, the accused preferred a petition under Section 482 CrPC and a criminal revision petition.

The petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife, who belonged to different castes and were in a relationship for 5 years, got married in November 2021 at Arya Samaj Mandir Nehru Nagar, Bhopal. According to the wife's version, the accused engaged in sexual acts with her on several occasions in the year 2021, after making false promises of marriage. He even threatened to kill her if she didn't agree with his demands, the 31-year-old complainant had stated.

Before the High Court, the petitioner husband contended that the allegations would not constitute rape since both are husband and wife. Moreover, the petitioner took the stance that the complaint was filed by the wife as a counterblast to the marital dispute between both. The state, on the other hand, submitted that the accused committed repeated rape on the prosecutrix by extending false promises of marriage.

Observations Since the prosecutrix had also alleged that rape was committed on her prior to the marriage, the court clarified that the accused would not be absolved by exception 2 under Section 375 (sexual acts, not rape if married). The specific allegation of the complainant says that she was forced to engage in sexual intercourse with the accused after the latter promised to marry her. Hence, the next question for consideration before the court was whether intercourse happened as a result of the prosecutrix believing the false promises of marriage to be true.

In the S.164 CrPC statement, the prosecutrix mentioned how she met the petitioner-husband in March 2021. When he proposed marriage to her, the complainant showed no interest in marrying him. However, the petitioner allegedly made to engage in sexual intercourse with him forcefully. When the prosecutrix warned him about her intention to file a criminal complaint, the petitioner-husband again assured her that they would marry and went on to forcefully rape her again, the complainant had submitted.

After repeatedly raping the respondent, the petitioner agreed to marry her in November 2021 after she filed a complaint with the police, though FIR was not lodged on the same complaint. The prosecutrix has stated that she agreed to the said marriage only upon the insistence of the counsellor in the police station, the court pointed out. She has even mentioned how one of the constables exerted pressure on her to marry the accused by threatening her with the implication of her brother in a criminal case, the court further noted.

Soon after the marriage, the petitioner-accused left the complainant and did not respond to her calls, it was stated by the complainant.

Case Title: XXX v. XXX

Case No: Criminal Revision No. 4421 of 2022 & Misc. Criminal Case No. 10051 of 2022