[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Kumar Thakurani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23662
1 MCRC-3118-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 23rd OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3118 of 2022
MUKESH KUMAR THAKURANI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Adv. with Utkarsh Agrawal - Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri Anand Chawla, Advocate for the respondent No.2
Shri Atmaram Bain, Dy. GA for respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C., invoking the inherent powers of this Court for
quashment of FIR No. 763/2019 dated 18.09.2019 registered at Police
Station Madhav Nagar, District Katni, for the offence punishable under
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with the charge-sheet
and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The grievance of the
petitioner is that the impugned FIR has been lodged in the backdrop of a
purely matrimonial dispute and contains vague, omnibus, and
exaggerated allegations, reflecting a clear misuse of the criminal process
with an oblique motive to harass the husband on false allegations.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23662
2 MCRC-3118-2022
respondent No. 2 were married on 12.02.2003 according to Hindu rites
and customs. After marriage, from 2003 till May, 2019, no complaints
were made by either side, though there were occasional quarrels. As per
the prosecution, the allegation against the petitioner is that he forcefully
committed unnatural act with respondent No. 2.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the FIR was lodged on 18.09.2019, whereas the alleged
date of incident is 22.07.2019. From 22.07.2019 till the date of
registration of the FIR, i.e., 18.09.2019, various complaints and legal
proceedings were initiated by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner;
however, in none of these proceedings is there even a whisper of any
allegation under Section 377 of the IPC. This clearly indicates that the
impugned FIR is a counterblast and an afterthought regarding an incident
that never occurred.
4. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 had earlier made
a complaint against the petitioner, on the basis of which an FIR was
registered on 14.07.2019 for offences under Sections 294, 323, and 506
of the IPC. The petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 05.03.2020
in the said case, as respondent No. 2 herself did not support the
prosecution case, which clearly shows that the earlier FIR was based on
false and frivolous grounds. It is also submitted that on 01.08.2019,
respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.,
wherein there is not even a whisper of any allegation under Section 377
of the IPC. Although paragraph 7 of the said application refers to the date
22.07.2019, no allegation under Section 377 was made; instead, a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23662
3 MCRC-3118-2022
different incident was mentioned. This clearly shows that the allegations
in the impugned FIR are absurd and an afterthought, made only to wreak
vengeance and extort money from the petitioner. The said application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was subsequently decided on the basis of
compromise.
5. It is further submitted that on 23.07.2019, another complaint
was made by respondent No. 2 before the Superintendent of Police,
Sagar. In this complaint also, there is no allegation under Section 377 of
the IPC. The complaint is dated 23.07.2019, whereas the alleged incident
in the FIR is dated 22.07.2019; omission of such a serious allegation in
the immediate subsequent complaint clearly indicates that the impugned
FIR is an afterthought. It is also relevant to mention that, in connection
with the said complaint, when respondent No. 2 recorded her statement
before the police, she expressed her willingness to reside with her
husband, and even in that statement there was no allegation under
Section 377 of the IPC. In support of his submissions, learned counsel
for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgments of coordinate Benches
of this Court in Manish Sahu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC
OnLine MP 2603; Manish Sahu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C.
No. 8388/2023 decided on 01.05.2024); Umang Singhar vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C. No. 59600/2022 decided on 21.09.2023); and
the judgment of the Gwalior Bench in Shubham Mangal vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C. No. 54650/2023 decided on 07.01.2026),
wherein in similar circumstances FIRs were quashed. Hence, it is prayed
that the present petition be allowed and the FIR along with all
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23662
4 MCRC-3118-2022
consequential proceedings be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
petition and submitted that the petitioner, after marriage, forcefully
committed an unnatural act with respondent No. 2, and therefore the FIR
has rightly been lodged. In support of his submissions, reliance has been
placed on the judgment of the Gwalior Bench in Banti Jatav vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C. No. 32576/2024 decided on 09.05.2025). It is,
therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record, it is apparent that respondent No. 2 had initiated multiple
proceedings against the petitioner prior to the lodging of the present FIR,
including complaints and proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.,
yet no allegation under Section 377 of the IPC was raised therein. The
record further reveals that in the complaint dated 23.07.2019 made by
respondent No. 2 before the Superintendent of Police, Sagar, there is no
allegation under Section 377 of the IPC, despite the alleged incident
being dated 22.07.2019. This clearly shows that the impugned FIR is an
afterthought.
9. The allegations made in the FIR are general and omnibus in
nature, lacking specific particulars regarding time, manner, and
circumstances of the alleged offence. Such vague allegations, without
substantive supporting material, are insufficient to sustain criminal
prosecution
10. The Gwalior Bench of this Court in Manish Sahu (supra)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23662
5 MCRC-3118-2022
has held in paragraphs 16, 17, and 18, after considering the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as under:-
16. Thus, it is clear that a consensual
sexual conduct between adults of the same
sex cannot be termed as an offence under
Section 377 of IPC. Thus in nutshell, it can
be said that if an unnatural sex takes place
between two persons of either same gender
or different gender with the consent of both
the parties, then it would not be an offence
under Section 377 of IPC.
17. Thus the consent of both the parties is
necessary for taking the act out of the
purview of Section 377 of IPC. However,
this Court after considering the amended
definition of "rape" as defined under
Section 375 of IPC has already come to a
conclusion that if a wife is residing with
her husband during the subsistence of a
valid marriage, then any sexual intercourse
or sexual act by a man with his own wife
not below the age of fifteen years will not
be rape. Therefore, in view of the amended
definition of "rape" under Section 375 of
IPC by which the insertion of penis in the
anus of a woman has also been included in
the definition of "rape" and any sexual
intercourse or sexual act by the husband
with her wife not below the age of fifteen
years is not a rape, then under these
circumstances, absence of consent of wife
for unnatural act loses its importance.
Marital rape has not been recognized so
far.
18. Under these circumstances, this Court
is of considered opinion that the allegations
made in the FIR would not make out an
offence under Section 377 of IPC. My
view is fortified by a judgment passed by
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of UmangSinghar Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, Through Station House Officer
and Another reported in 2023 SCCOnLine
MP 3221."
11. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. Consequently FIR
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23662
6 MCRC-3118-2022
No. 763/2019 dated 18.9.2019 registered at Police Station Madhav
Nagar, District Katni and the consequential proceedings arising
therefrom are quashed.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
SM
