Supreme Court Quashes Rape Charges Against Husband Under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC image for SC Judgment dated 31-01-2025 in the case of Kuldeep Singh vs The State of Punjab & Ors.
| |

Supreme Court Quashes Rape Charges Against Husband Under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC

Updated on

The Supreme Court of India, in Kuldeep Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors., ruled in favor of the appellant, quashing an FIR and criminal proceedings against him under Sections 366, 376, and 506 IPC. The Court emphasized that marital sexual relations cannot constitute rape under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, thereby affirming the accused’s innocence in a case involving marriage by consent.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around a complaint filed by the cousin of the alleged victim, claiming that the accused, Kuldeep Singh, had abducted her on June 13, 2022, and forcibly married her. The FIR was registered on June 14, 2022, under Section 366 IPC. However, subsequent developments revealed that the victim had willingly married the accused on June 15, 2022, as per Sikh rites and had jointly sought protection from the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

Key Facts

  • The victim was working at National Insurance Company and was last seen leaving her office on June 13, 2022.
  • The complainant, her cousin, suspected that the accused had kidnapped her.
  • The accused and the victim were married on June 15, 2022, and filed for protection before the High Court on June 16, 2022.
  • The High Court granted protection to the couple on June 21, 2022.
  • On August 31, 2022, the victim returned to her parental home and subsequently recorded a statement under Section 164 CrPC, alleging rape.
  • Her statement led to the addition of Sections 376 and 506 IPC against the accused.

Legal Issues

Appellant’s Arguments

The accused, Kuldeep Singh, argued that:

  • The victim married him voluntarily, as evidenced by the High Court protection petition.
  • He was the legally wedded husband of the victim, making the charge of rape legally unsustainable under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC.
  • The victim had never alleged rape in her written response to his restitution of conjugal rights petition.
  • The FIR was an abuse of legal process, initiated due to pressure from the victim’s family.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Punjab and the victim contended that:

  • The accused had coerced the victim into marriage.
  • The marriage was forced, and the accused committed rape.
  • The police had investigated the case, and sufficient grounds existed to proceed to trial.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. Legality of the Marriage

The Court noted that the couple had filed a petition seeking protection, confirming their marriage.

  • “The couple’s plea before the High Court for protection from the victim’s relatives is strong evidence of a marriage by consent.”

2. Application of Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC

The Supreme Court reiterated the legal position that sexual intercourse between legally wedded spouses does not constitute rape.

  • “As per Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, sexual relations between a husband and wife cannot be considered rape.”
  • “The charge under Section 376 IPC cannot be sustained against the appellant.”

3. Conduct of the Complainant and Victim

The Court took note of the delay in alleging rape, raising doubts about the veracity of the complaint.

  • “The complainant initially alleged abduction, not rape.”
  • “The victim returned to her parental home after nearly three months and only then alleged sexual assault.”
  • “Her previous legal responses, including the conjugal rights case, did not contain allegations of rape.”

Key Precedents Cited

  • State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal: Guidelines for quashing FIRs under Section 482 CrPC.
  • Uday v. State of Karnataka: Courts must ensure allegations are not made under pressure or coercion.
  • Independent Thought v. Union of India: Interpretation of marital rape exceptions under IPC.

Final Judgment

  • The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings against the accused.
  • The judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court was set aside.
  • The charges under Sections 376 and 506 IPC were declared legally unsustainable.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has far-reaching consequences:

  • Reaffirms that marital relations are protected under Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC.
  • Prevents misuse of rape laws in matrimonial disputes.
  • Clarifies that criminal charges must be backed by consistent and credible evidence.
  • Strengthens judicial scrutiny in cases where criminal law is invoked to resolve personal disputes.

This judgment ensures that legal provisions are not misused to settle personal grievances, upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system.


Petitioner Name: Kuldeep Singh.
Respondent Name: The State of Punjab & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prasanna B. Varale.
Place Of Incident: Hoshiarpur, Punjab.
Judgment Date: 31-01-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: kuldeep-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-31-01-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in SC/ST Act Case
See all petitions in Judgment by Vikram Nath
See all petitions in Judgment by Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts