‘Marital rape not crime, but other offences stand’: Why Meghalaya High Court refused to quash ‘entire FIR’ against police officer

It cannot be said that the allegations made in the FIR are totally non-specific or too general, the court said.

The Meghalaya High Court, however, clarified that the same couldn’t be a ground to quash the entire FIR for it had “allegations of commission of other offences also”.  “It is expected that the investigating authority would consider the above aspect of law at the time of preparation of the final report of investigation in the present matter,” it noted on February 21.

Exception to ‘rape’

• A bare reading of the FIR dated September 19, 2023, indicates that the bride’s father was forced to meet the huge dowry demands of the groom and his family members.
• After 10 days of marriage, when the woman was taken to her matrimonial house at Shillong, she was subjected to continuous mental and physical cruelty, assault and was locked inside the house. 
• The woman refused to undergo an abortion, and she was allegedly thrown out of her husband’s house. 
• When the jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked to get the FIR quashed, essentially on the ground of the proceedings being frivolous or instituted with the ulterior motive, it’s court’s duty to look into the case over and above the averments made in the FIR/Complaint. 
• In the backdrop of the entire chain of events, it cannot be said that the allegations made in the FIR are totally non-specific or too general in nature and that it does not refer to any particular incident.
• There is nothing on record to show that the wife has filed the FIR after the institution of legal proceedings against her by the husband. Hence, it cannot be held that the FIR by the wife is a counterblast. 
• The contention of the husband that Section 376 (punishment for rape) IPC would not have any application in the present case appears to have some force. 
• Under Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being a minor, is not considered rape.
• In the present case, the woman is not a minor. However, the same cannot be a ground for quashing the entire FIR as it contains allegations of the commission of other offences also.

‘Marital rape not recognised in Indian law’

• Senior counsel S Chakraborty and advocate E Laloo, representing the husband, submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are too vague and general.
• There is no specific harassment mentioned in the FIR that requires a criminal investigation by the police.
• The counsel submits that the documents enclosed with the FIR also do not bring out any specific offensive act of the husband against the wife.
• The counsel said that after the wife deserted the husband, an FIR was submitted by him on August 19, 2023, to the Madanaring Police Station.
• The filing of the FIR was done by the wife with an ulterior motive to seek vengeance on the husband in reply to his FIR.
• The counsel submits that the wife’s oblique motive and intention against the husband are apparent, as the FIR contains an allegation of extra-marital affairs by him.
• The counsel contends that marital rape is not recognised in Indian law and, as such, Section 376 of the IPC would not be attracted in the present case. 
• The counsel submits that if the husband is made to face a criminal investigation on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instance of criminal conduct, it would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
•  The counsel submits that there is no truth in the allegations levelled against the husband and prays that the FIR dated September 19, 2023, be quashed. 

Maintenance of wife and children

• Public prosecutor H Kharmih, appearing for the state, submits that the allegations made in the FIR involves serious offence and the bills and payment receipts shows existence of a prima facie case against the husband.
• He submits that the allegation of mental and physical abuse and excessive dowry demand is very serious and hence, any interference at this stage by this court would not be in the interest of justice. 
• He submits that, though no chargesheet has been filed in the case as yet, the investigation is complete, and the statements recorded during the course of the investigation support the allegations made in the FIR. 
• The counsel submits that out of the marriage between the husband and wife, a male child was born on April 7, 2024. 
• Despite the filing of a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by the wife, the husband is not taking any responsibility to maintain his wife and the child.
• The counsel submits that sufficient disclosures have been made in the FIR, and the allegations therein are not general in nature. Therefore, there is no merit in the case of the husband, and the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

Commission of cognisable offences: Wife

• The wife’s counsel advocate N M Kharshemlang said that the FIR discloses the commission of cognisable offences by the husband, besides the sequence of events since the marriage.
• The FIR was stated to disclose specific demands for substantial dowry items, including cash. 
• It was also argued that the FIR demonstrated that the wife was subjected to mental and physical cruelty immediately after the marriage. 
• The FIR was further said to have revealed that the wife was found to be pregnant during a medical check-up, but the husband and his family forced her to undergo an abortion.
• The counsel claimed forceful sexual intercourse by the husband, coupled with a threat of dire consequences. 
• The wife, it was argued, was forced to leave her matrimonial home due to intolerable, abusive and coercive behaviour and threats of her husband and the in-laws.
• The counsel submitted that the documents placed on record by the husband in the case clearly demonstrate that the wife was compelled to initiate proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

‘Treated like an animal’

• The husband was serving as a sub-inspector in the Meghalaya Police.
• He married the woman on June 8, 2023, under the Muslim Personal Law, and the marriage took place at their ancestral village in Bihar.
• After 10 days of marriage, they, along with the other family members of the husband, moved to Shillong.
• On August 7, 2023, the wife left Shilong with her father and sister for her parental home.
• On September 19, 2023, the wife filed an FIR against the husband and his family at the East Khasi Hills District Police Station, which was subsequently registered at the Madanriting Police Station.
• The FIR stated that the husband and his family asked for a Royal Enfield bike and had demanded gold ornaments from the wife’s father and threatened to refuse the marriage if their demands were not met.
• The wife alleged that the husband raped her every night after marriage.
• The FIR also stated that she was allegedly being treated like an animal and was not allowed to have conversations with the neighbours, and if she was ever seen out having a conversation, her sister-in-law and mother-in-law would thrash her.
• When she was found pregnant, the husband and his family allegedly forced her to abort the child; on her refusal to do such an act, they threw her out of the house. 
• The husband allegedly threatened the wife on several occasions to kill her and her unborn child.