Marriage, Rape, and the Law: The Quashing of FIR Against Kuldeep Singh


Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: KULDEEP SINGH vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB.

Citation: 2025 INSC 137 (Reportable)

Initial Allegations and FIR

  • The case began with FIR No. 148, filed on June 14, 2022, by the cousin of the victim (Respondent No. 3), who is referred to as the complainant (Respondent No. 2).
  • The FIR was initially lodged under Sections 366 (kidnapping), 376 (rape), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), against Kuldeep Singh (Appellant).
  • The complainant stated that the victim, who was working at National Insurance Company, was dropped at her office on the morning of June 13, 2022, and that she left her office at around 1:30 p.m. and did not return.
  • The complainant alleged that Kuldeep Singh had been harassing her for a few days and that he had abducted the victim.

Marriage and Subsequent Legal Actions

  • Kuldeep Singh claimed that he and the victim married each other on June 15, 2022, according to Sikh rites and ceremonies, against her family's wishes.
  • Following their marriage, they filed a protection petition (CRWP No. 5913 of 2022) before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking protection from the victim's family.
  • The High Court granted them protection on June 21, 2022.
  • Subsequently, the victim returned to her parental home on August 31, 2022.
  • Kuldeep Singh then filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights with the victim.

Victim's Statement and Amended Charges

  • On September 1, 2022, the victim recorded a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), alleging that she was raped by Kuldeep Singh and that the marriage was forced.
  • She also implicated Kuldeep Singh's mother and brother as having assisted in the alleged crimes.
  • The FIR was amended to include Sections 363 (kidnapping), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 376 (rape) of the IPC, and Kuldeep Singh’s mother and brother were also named as accused.

Special Investigation Team (SIT) Inquiry

  • A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed to investigate the matter.
  • The SIT concluded that the allegations of kidnapping and forced marriage against Kuldeep Singh were not proven, as the victim had married him with her consent.
  • The SIT also exonerated Kuldeep Singh's mother and brother.
  • Section 366 of the IPC was deleted, and charges were brought against Kuldeep Singh alone under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

High Court Decision

  • Kuldeep Singh filed a petition (CRM-M-No. 41161 of 2023) in the High Court, seeking to quash FIR No. 148 of 2022 and all consequential proceedings.
  • The High Court dismissed Kuldeep Singh’s petition, stating that the matter required evaluation of evidence and adjudication by the Trial Court.

Supreme Court Appeal

  • Kuldeep Singh appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's order.
  • The Supreme Court noted that neither the complainant (Respondent No. 2) nor the victim (Respondent No. 3) appeared before the Court, despite sufficient service of notice.
  • Kuldeep Singh's counsel argued that Section 376 of the IPC cannot be applied to the appellant, as he is a legally wedded husband and thus is covered by Exception 2 of Section 375 of the IPC.
  • The appellant also highlighted that the victim did not allege rape in her written statement filed in the matter of restitution of conjugal rights.

Rationale, Reasoning Given by the Judges

  • The Supreme Court emphasized that the SIT report confirmed the marriage between Kuldeep Singh and the victim was solemnized with her consent.
  • The court highlighted that Exception 2 of Section 375 of the IPC states that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife is not rape, therefore a charge under section 376 of IPC could not be sustained.
  • The court noted that the victim had not raised any allegations of rape or forceful marriage in her written statement regarding the restitution of conjugal rights petition.
  • The court also noted that the victim had not raised any allegations of rape or forceful marriage in the protection petition she filed along with Kuldeep Singh in the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
  • The lack of participation by the complainant and victim in the court proceedings, despite proper service of notice, was considered a sign that the case was a “dead case”.
  • The court found no prima facie case of any offense made out against Kuldeep Singh, particularly regarding the charge of rape given the existing valid marriage between the parties.

Supreme Court Decision

  • The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court.
  • FIR No. 148 of 2022 against Kuldeep Singh and all consequential proceedings were quashed.
  • The court concluded that the case lacked merit, and continuing criminal proceedings would be futile.

Excerpt, Important Quotes from the Decision

  • "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 charge under Section 376 of IPC cannot be sustained 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."

Points to Remember

  • The SIT investigation was crucial in establishing that the marriage was consensual and in exonerating the appellant's mother and brother.
  • Exception 2 of Section 375 of the IPC clearly states that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is not considered rape.
  • Inconsistencies in the victim's statements, particularly the absence of rape allegations in earlier legal proceedings, played a significant role in the court's decision.
  • The Supreme Court acted to prevent the abuse of legal process by quashing an FIR that lacked merit and to safeguard citizens from undue harassment.
  • The court emphasized the importance of consistent and truthful testimony and a balanced approach to criminal proceedings.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more