The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that, in the absence of medical evidence or supporting material, initiating proceedings under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code against a husband amounts to an abuse of legal process.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas was hearing multiple petitions challenging FIRs registered under various IPC sections, including Section 377 (unnatural offences), based on complaints filed by wives against their husbands, followed by the filing of charge sheets.
The Court observed that, prima facie, there was no material on record to substantiate the allegations made against the petitioner-husbands under Section 377. Therefore, the continuation of such criminal proceedings was deemed a misuse of the legal process.
Consequently, the Court allowed the trial to proceed for other alleged offences but restrained any coercive action under Section 377 IPC against the husbands.
The petitioners contended that offences under Section 377 IPC, being of an intimate nature between husband and wife, inherently lack eyewitnesses. Since the prosecution failed to present any supporting material, safeguards under Section 161 (police examination of witnesses), Section 164 (magistrate’s recording of confessions), and Section 164-A CrPC (medical examination of rape victims) could not be invoked in their favour.
They further argued that while Section 164-A CrPC mandates medical examination in rape cases, no such specific provision exists for offences under Section 377 IPC. Therefore, in the absence of any prima facie evidence from the complainant or prosecution, the offence under Section 377 cannot be sustained.
The petitioners also argued that as per Section 375 of the IPC, if a man has committed sexual intercourse with his wife, it will not fall within the ambit of rape under Section 375 of IPC if the age of the wife is over 18 years, therefore, if sexual intercourse with wife does not fall within rape then any act committed by husband as enumerated in Section 377 will also not fall within the ambit of unnatural offences.
They submitted that in the context of marital relations, consent is not a prerequisite for sexual intercourse, and hence, the exception under Section 375(2) IPC would apply, offering protection to the petitioners against allegations under Section 377.
The petitioners further argued that the law does not mandate consent for sexual intercourse with one’s wife, stating that requiring such consent would negatively impact societal structure and complicate family dynamics.
Importantly, they also highlighted that the medical examination reports of the complainants explicitly stated that no conclusive opinion could be formed regarding anal intercourse, and the investigating authorities failed to present any material in the final report to support the charge under Section 377 IPC.
The petitioners contended that in order to prima facie establish an offence under Section 377 IPC, further investigation and supporting material were essential. In the absence of such evidence, they argued that the registration of the offence amounted to an abuse of the legal process and should be quashed by the Court.
On the other hand, the Advocate General (AG), representing the State, referred to Section 154 CrPC and maintained that it is mandatory for the police to register an FIR based on a victim’s complaint. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Kerala vs. Kurissum Moottil Antony (2007), the AG argued that a medical examination is not a prerequisite for FIR registration.
He further asserted that the victim’s statement alone was sufficient to constitute an offence in the FIRs, and thus, the FIRs could not be quashed at this preliminary stage.
However, after considering the submissions from both sides, the Court held that in the context of Section 377 IPC, the lack of supporting evidence on record rendered the FIRs an abuse of the legal process.