Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Kesharwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 February, 2026
1 MCRC-11179-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 12th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11179 of 2025
RAHUL KESHARWANI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chaurasia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Pushpanjaly Dwivedi PL for the State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS /482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.513/2023 registered at PS- Kotwali, Satna for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 506 and 450 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that as per complainant, she was married 9 years ago to one Balmukund Sthapak and is having 2 children out of her first wedlock (A 8 y/o boy & a5 y/o girl child) her first husband Balmukund Sthapak got succumbed to death 2 years ago because of some disease. After her first husband got deceased she was living with her parents at Old Power House P.S city Kotwali Satna. The present applicant frequently uses to visit her house and because of this they got familiar and close to each other. That as per complainant her parents were not at home on 12.10.2022 & she was all alone in her house then only at around 03.00 pm the present Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 19-02-2026 11:00:01 2 MCRC-11179-2025 applicant came to her house and got close to her against her will and also performed sexual intercourse against her will which amounts to rape after that applicant performed sexual intercourse against her will on several occasions and also promised to marry her. On 23.06.2023 when she asked applicant about their marriage, he refused to do so and also threatened her to not to disclose about their relation to anyone or else he will kill her and after that she told each and every information to her parents and lodged this FIR accompanied by her mother against the present applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR is registered 8 months after the incident happened and during these 8 months prosecutrix was in regular contact of applicant and was willfully indulged in sexual intercourse with applicant i.e her husband. It is also submitted that the FSL i.e. forensic report is negative and is contrary to the statement of the prosecutrix. It is also submitted that one of the prime reason to quash the FIR against the present applicant are "onion statements" given by prosecuterix in her 164 statement which reveals the actual truth that prosecuterix has got married to applicant on 12.10.2022 and entered into agreement/joint affidavit about their marriage and one of the prime legal question arose here is whether a man is liable for offence of rape after marriage ? In other words, whether Husband can be liable for rape at any cost and whether a husband can be liable for rape on pretext of marriage? The gross principal is only baseless as Husband is in no need to make sexual relation or perform sexual intercourse on false pretext of marriage as he is already married to his wife. It is also submitted that if her husband the present applicant is not living Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 19-02-2026 11:00:01 3 MCRC-11179-2025 with her after marriage or ignoring her after marriage then or committed bigamy then many penal remedies are available with her instead of implicating her own husband in false rape case. continuance of trial against a husband for offence of rape case where he was implicated by his wife will be the gross abuse of process of law. A tape case cannot implicate against a husband by his wife on bigamy at any cost as there are specific penal provisions for bigamy. Therefore, it has been prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and aforesaid FIR be quashed.
4. Heard the parties at length and perused the record of the case.
5. The record of the case revels that the petitioner is claiming himself to be the husband of the complainant. The record of the case also revels that the as per the averments of the FIR the petitioner has committed rape upon the complaint upto 8 months on the pretext of marriage and when the complaint had forced the petitioner than only the petitioner had performed marriage in a temple and executed a document. This seems to be an attempt to save himself from the penal consequences.
6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition and prays for its dismissal.
7. The counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance upon Annexure A/ 4 which is a document executed between the petitioner and the complainant. The document Annexure P/4 is a joint declaration /agreement, which is in detail and mention every minute detail about the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant. This document dated 11/10/2022 has been voluntarily signed by both the parties after understanding every Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 19-02-2026 11:00:01 4 MCRC-11179-2025 aspect of the document. The documents clarifies that both the parties are entering into a bond of marriage. The contention of the complaint that the petitioner has committed rape upon her on the pretext of marriage has no legs to stand.
8. In the instant case the allegations in the FIR are under section 376 (2) (n) of the IPC. An offence of rape, if established in terms of section 375 of the IPC, is punishable under section 376 of the IPC. In the present case, the second description of section 376 is relevant with is reads thus:
376 (2)(n) Whoever,--
(n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
9. Section 376 (2) (n) of the IPC applies where rape is committed repeatedly on the same women and mandates rigorous imprisonment for ten years which may extend to life imprisonment. The expression repeatedly means more than one act of sexual assault, committed at different points in time on the same victim. It has been time and again settled by the court of law that the mere fact that the parties indulged in physical relations pursuant to t promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case.
10. Exception 2 of section 375 of IPC is also important to be taken under consideration. Section 375 (2) reads thus:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 19-02-2026 11:00:015 MCRC-11179-2025 Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a men with his own wife, the wife not being under 18 years of age, is not rape.
Exception 2 of Section 375 IPC makes it clear that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife is not rape. Since exception clause is carved out under section 375 IPC, therefore, condition of rape as defined under condition mentioned in Section 375 IPC occurs between men and woman, who are husband and wife then offence under section 375 IPC will not be made out.
11. Upon a consideration of the record in the present case, this court is unable to discern any material that would warrant the invocation of Section 376 (2) (n) IPC. The facts of the present case unmistakably indicate towards a classic case of a consensual relationship turning acrimonious.
12. Our own high court has occasion to dealt with the same issue in the matter of CRR No. 4421 of 2022 Sandeep Kumar Soni Vs. The State of MP wherein para 13 and 14 are as under:
"13. After carefully considering the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and arguments which is raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondents, it is found that prosecutrix never surrendered to petitioner believing false promise of marriage to be true. From statement, it is evident that after making false promise of marriage, prosecutrix did not Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 19-02-2026 11:00:01 6 MCRC-11179-2025 believe petitioner and she did not surrender to him. She has stated that she opposed the advances of petitioner but petitioner being a man and stronger committed forceful rape on her. Consent of prosecutrix was not there. She opposed the advances of petitioner on first occasion i.e. in March, 2021 and did not surrender to him believing false promise of marriage. In second incident on 29.8.2021, she did not believe on false promise of marriage. Petitioner again said to have been committed forceful rape on her. Thereafter, she has stated that in police station that she was forced by police constable, petitioner and his friend to get married. Under such pressure, she married the petitioner.
14. From going through the entire story as narrated by the prosecutrix, it is clear that she did not surrender to petitioner for making sexual intercourse on believing false promise of marriage to be true. She did not give any consent for establishing physical relationship. After incident of rape which is said to have occurred, prosecutrix did not lodge any FIR against the petitioner. She remained quite and after incident of rape she has also done marriage with the petitioner in Arya Samaj Mandir."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in non-reported judgment of SLP (Cri) No. 4452 of 2025 Pramod Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh has quashed the FIR registered under section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code in similar facts and circumstances as in the present case.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 19-02-2026 11:00:017 MCRC-11179-2025
14. The petitioner is an adult lady of permissible age and voluntary indulged into relationship on 12/10/2022 for the first time and repeatedly for long time, she did not lodge FIR against petitioner on the contrary she also married the petitioner. In such circumstances the story which prosecutrix is narrating regarding commission of rape on her seems to be under scanner. On this court the petition filed under section 528 of the BNNS by the petitioner is allowed. The FIR is quashed and the charge sheet, if any, filed against the petitioner by police are also quashed.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI) JUDGE Hashmi Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 19-02-2026 11:00:01