CASE NAME: Shubham Mangal v State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors
CASE NUMBER: Misc. Crl. Case No. 54650 of 2023
COURT: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
DATE: 7th January 2026
JUDGE: Hon’blex Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta
FACTS
The petitioner and the prosecutrix were married since 26th June 2022, wherein, the prosecutrix’s parents provided 21,00,000/- and 15 tola gold as a dowry. Following a marital rift, the petitioner filed for divorce on 6th September 2023 on grounds of cruelty. Parallelly, on 1st October 2023, an FIR bearing Crime No. 971/2023 was registered at the Kotwali police station against the petitioner and others under Sections 498A, 376(2)(n), 377, 323 and 294 of IPC. The complainant alleged that the petitioner forced physical relations on her and had engaged in unnatural sexual acts without her consent. The petitioner obtained anticipatory bail and filed a petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing of the FIR and charge sheet.
ISSUES
- Whether offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 of the IPC can be prosecuted against the husband for acts committed with his wife considering Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC.
- Whether marital rape as exception under Section 375 IPC extends its scope to unnatural sexual acts under Section 377 IPC when committed between husband and wife.
- Whether the FIR constitutes malicious prosecution and abuse of process when instituted as a counter to divorce proceedings.
- Whether the allegations prima facie constitute cognizable offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 294 IPC.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 375 IPC, which defines rape, with exception 2 providing for sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife is not rape if the wife is not under 18 years of age.
- Section 376 IPC which imposes the punishment for rape, which is mentioned in Section 375.
- Section 377 IPC which criminalizes voluntary carnal intercourse against the order of nature.
- Section 498A IPC criminalizes cruelty.
- Kuldeep Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. (CRM-M-62026-2025), an Apex court verdict which recognized marital rape as an exception for rape.
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India ((2018) 10 SCC 1), a judgement which is a Constitutional Bench judgment regarding interpretation of Section 377.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER:
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that sexual intercourse or sexual acts between husband and wife cannot constitute rape under Section 376 IPC due to exception 2 of Section 375. By reason of falling under same scope of acts, even unnatural sexual acts cannot be prosecuted under Section 377 IPC and that too, between married partners. The petitioner relied upon the precedent laid down in the case of Kuldeep Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. (CRM-M-62026-2025), wherein, the Apex Court held that when a couple is legally married and sexual intercourse is consensual no prima facie case pertaining to rape under Section 376 IPC arises. The counsel went on to argue that the said FIR alleging the offences was lodged maliciously as a counter for the divorce proceedings which were instituted by the petitioner on 6th September 2023. The complainant filed the complaint approximately a month later 1st October 2023, which establishes the prevalence of chronological connection between divorce initiation and criminal prosecution.
RESPONDENT:
The counsel representing the state has argued that serious sexual offenses cannot be safeguarded from prosecution for sole reason of parties being married. The complainant alleged forced unnatural sexual acts being committed on her without her consent which was violent in nature. The medical examinations reports were relied upon as a basis of these allegations. The counsel for the respondents went on to argue that the quashing would enable the perpetrators to exploit an exception to evade accountability for sexual abuse.
ANALYSIS
Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta’s judgement focused on interpretation of the scope of marital exception under amended Section 375 IPC and its application upon section 377 IPC offenses. The court examined the history following the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 which elaborated the definition of rape to include various penetrative sexual acts. The court notes that the 2nd exception of Section 375 actively exempts non-consensual sexual intercourse between husband and wife to be included in the definition of rape. The Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh v The State of Punjab & Anr. (CRM-M-62026-2025) set a precedent that when a complainant and the accused are legally married, the intercourse fell under the scope of exception 2 and no prima facie rape case can be filed.
Justice Gupta analyzed the definitional structure of Section 375 IPC and Section 377 IPC. He went on to observe that both these provisions address similar parts and acts with the distinguishing factor of existence of consent. Section 375, upon the amendment, provides for the consent to be immaterial between husband and wife. However, the interpretation of Section 377 IPC in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India ((2018) 10 SCC 1) by the Constitutional Bench recognizes that consensual acts cannot constitute offences under Section 377 IPC. The Court applied the doctrine of implied repeal and noted that in circumstances where two statutory provisions are repugnant and inconsistent, the earlier is abrogated by the latter. Upon the amendment of Section 375 IPC in Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 to exclude marital sexual acts from criminal purview and the fact that Section 377 IPC operates within a much narrow scope pertaining to unnatural act as the marital exception logically extends to Section 377 offences between husband and wife.
However, the Court elucidated that forced unnatural sexual acts, even when occurred between spouses, carry the potential to constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC, rather than rape under Section 376 IPC or unnatural acts under Section 377IPC. Section 498A protects against severe cruelty regardless of the marital relationship. As for the subject matter of malicious prosecution, Hon’ble Justice Gupta held that the temporal proximity between divorce petition filing and FIR registration, upon coupled consideration with lack of medical corroboration and specific allegations is indicative of abuse of process. The earlier settlement through conciliation agreement which occurred on 20th June 2023, and the subsequent conflicting hostile narratives strengthen the malicious prosecution narrative.
JUDGMENT
The Hight Court quashed the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 of the IPC upon finding out that these offences cannot deem to be legally prosecuted between legally married spouses. However, the Court maintained offences under Sections 323, 294, and 498A IPC which permit the prosecution to carry further with the proceedings the respective courts.
CONCLUSION
This judgment provides for a significant clarity regarding intersection of marital exception doctrine and unnatural sex acts under Section 377 IPC. The verdict by Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta establishes that the exception 2 under Section 375 extends to unnatural sexual acts under Section 377, when committed between legally married spouses. Well, protections are provided for genuine victims of marital sexual violence through Section 498A IPC, the judgement calls for non- utilization of the provision as a tool for prosecuting consensual or disputed intimate acts within the marriage. The decision align with the precedent set in the case of Navtej Singh Johar principles about consent under Section 377 being important for recognition for constitutional protection against marital sexual abuse through alternate statutory frameworks.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: KRISHNA KOUSHIK
