The Chhattisgarh High Court held that initiating proceedings under Section 377 IPC against a husband, without medical or supporting evidence, constitutes an abuse of the legal process.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas was hearing petitions challenging FIRs lodged under various IPC provisions, including Section 377, based on complaints by wives against their husbands, followed by charge sheets.
The Court noted that there was no prima facie material to support the allegations under Section 377, and hence continuing such proceedings amounted to misuse of the legal system.
Accordingly, the Court permitted the trial to continue for other alleged offences but barred any coercive steps against the husbands under Section 377 IPC.
The petitioners argued that offences under Section 377, involving private acts between spouses, naturally lack eyewitnesses. As the prosecution failed to produce supporting evidence, procedural safeguards under Sections 161 (witness examination), 164 (magisterial confession), and 164-A CrPC (medical examination in sexual offence cases) could not be applied to support the allegations.
They further contended that although Section 164-A CrPC mandates medical examination in rape cases, there is no corresponding provision for offences under Section 377 IPC. Hence, without any prima facie evidence from the complainant or the prosecution, the charge under Section 377 cannot be upheld.
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.
The petitioners argued that within the bounds of marriage, consent is not a legal requirement for sexual intercourse, and therefore, the exception under Section 375(2) IPC shields them from allegations under Section 377. They further contended that the law does not impose a consent requirement for marital intercourse, and enforcing such a standard could disrupt societal norms and complicate familial relationships.
Crucially, the petitioners pointed out that the complainants’ medical reports clearly stated that no conclusive opinion could be formed regarding anal intercourse, and the investigating authorities failed to produce any material in the final report to substantiate the charge under Section 377 IPC.
They argued that to prima facie establish an offence under Section 377, further investigation and supporting evidence were necessary. In the absence of such proof, the registration of the offence amounted to a misuse of the legal process and warranted quashing by the Court.
onversely, the Advocate General (AG), representing the State, cited Section 154 CrPC to argue that police are duty-bound to register an FIR upon receiving a victim’s complaint. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Kerala vs. Kurissum Moottil Antony (2007), he maintained that a medical examination is not a prerequisite for lodging an FIR.
He further contended that the victim’s statement alone was sufficient to constitute the offence, and therefore, the FIRs could not be quashed at this initial stage.
However, after examining the arguments from both sides, the Court concluded that in the case of Section 377 IPC, the absence of supporting evidence made the FIRs a misuse of the legal process.
