Latest news with #MadhyaPradeshHighCourt
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
HC: Forced unnatural sex with wife amounts to cruelty under IPC 498A, the section known for dowry cases
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that forcing unnatural sex on a wife, along with physical assault and cruelty, is an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court upheld an FIR registered by a woman against her husband but clarified that the husband cannot be charged under Sections 377 or 376, as marital rape is not recognised as a crime under Indian law. Charges challenged by husband The police had filed charges against the accused under Sections 377 (unnatural sex), 323 (assault), and 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives). The husband contested the FIR in the High Court, arguing that unnatural sex with a wife is not an offence under Indian law. He also claimed that Section 498A did not apply because no dowry harassment was alleged. Court's ruling on cruelty and Section 498A Justice G S Ahluwalia of the Gwalior bench stated, "Committing unnatural sex with a wife against her wishes and on her resistance, assaulting and treating her with physical cruelty will certainly fall within the definition of cruelty. It is not out of place to mention here that demand of dowry is not sine qua non for cruelty." The court explained, "From a plain reading of IPC section 498A, it is clear that any wilful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health, whether mental or physical, to the woman, would amount to cruelty." Marital rape charges quashed, other charges upheld The High Court ruled that unnatural sex with a wife does not constitute an offence under Section 376 (rape) or Section 377 (unnatural sex) of the IPC and quashed those charges. However, it upheld the charges under Section 498A and Section 323 based on specific allegations that the wife was assaulted and treated with physical cruelty when she resisted. Live Events The court concluded, "This court is of the considered opinion that offence under section 498A IPC is made out. Accordingly, this application is partially allowed. Offence under section 377 is hereby quashed. However, FIR in relation to offence under Section 498A and 323 stands." Significance of the ruling This judgement clarifies the legal stance on forced unnatural sex within marriage and confirms that cruelty under Section 498A applies even when dowry demands are not involved. It strengthens protection for women facing physical cruelty in marriage. Economic Times WhatsApp channel )
News18
a day ago
- News18
Forced Unnatural Sex With Wife Amounts To Cruelty, Rules Madhya Pradesh High Court
Last Updated: The court, however, clarified that such acts don't amount to an offence under Section 377 IPC when committed within a subsisting marriage due to the exception in the statute The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior, addressing the limits of criminal liability within marriage, has held that committing unnatural sex with one's wife without her consent, accompanied by physical assault and cruelty, constitutes an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the court clarified that such acts do not amount to an offence under Section 377 IPC when committed within a subsisting marriage, due to the exception carved out in the statute. The single bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia made the observation while hearing a case arising from proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Police Station Sirol, District Gwalior. The FIR, lodged by the wife (Respondent No. 2), invoked Sections 377 (unnatural offences), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives) of the IPC. According to the complainant, she was married to the applicant on May 2, 2023, under Hindu rites. At the time of marriage, her parents allegedly gave Rs 5 lakh in cash, household items, and a Bullet motorcycle. In her FIR, the wife accused the applicant of engaging in unnatural sex acts after consuming alcohol, often resorting to violence when she resisted. She further alleged persistent cruelty and abuse, despite attempts by her family and interventions by the Mahila Paramarsh Kendra and local police. The applicant's counsel contended that since the complainant was his legally wedded wife, the allegation of unnatural sex within marriage did not constitute an offence under Section 377 IPC. The counsel further asserted that if the primary allegation under Section 377 fails, then charges under Sections 498A and 323 should also not stand. The single bench examined the statutory framework and relevant judicial precedents. Citing the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [(2018) 10 SCC 1], the court reiterated that consensual unnatural sex between adults is no longer criminalised under Section 377 IPC. However, the distinction in the present case was the absence of consent. Despite this, the court observed that Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC; which exempts sexual intercourse by a man with his wife (not under 15 years of age) from the definition of rape, remains operative under Indian law, unless the couple is living separately under a decree of judicial separation (in which case Section 376B IPC may apply). Accordingly, the court held: '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." However, the court said that even where consent is absent, such acts within marriage are not punishable under Section 377 IPC due to the statutory exception. 'Thus the consent of both the parties is necessary for taking the act out of the purview of Section 377 of IPC," it said. Turning to the allegations under Section 498A IPC, the court emphasised that cruelty encompasses not only dowry-related abuse but also any wilful conduct that could cause grave mental or physical harm to the wife. The bench observed, 'Committing unnatural sex with wife against her wishes and on her resistance, assaulting and treating her with physical cruelty will certainly fall within the definition of cruelty." The court also clarified that demand for dowry is not a prerequisite to invoke Section 498A, as cruelty under the provision is not limited to financial coercion. The court partially allowed the petition. It quashed the charge under Section 377 IPC but upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 323 IPC. The court held, 'Accordingly, this application is partially allowed. Offence under Section 377 is hereby quashed. However, FIR in relation to offence under Section 498A and 323 of IPC is upheld." First Published:
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Seized material reveals prima facie bid to ‘establish Mughal order': Madhya Pradesh HC refuses to intervene in denial of bail to lawyer
Refusing to intervene in a lower court's denial of bail to a lawyer booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that material seized from him 'prima facie reveals that an attempt is being made' to disrupt communal harmony and establish a 'Mughal order as it existed' before British rule in India. The lawyer, who worked as a volunteer with a human rights organisation, was booked in 2023. A chargesheet was filed against him on March 19, 2023, and he was denied bail by a Special NIA judge in Bhopal on February 8, 2025. He was booked under several IPC sections, including those dealing with criminal conspiracy and promoting enmity between groups. He was also booked under UAPA sections that deal with running terror camps and terror recruiting, among others. A High Court division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra, while refusing to intervene with the denial of bail to the lawyer, observed that material seized from the house/office of the appellant 'prima facie reveals that attempt is being made to cause disruption to the communal harmony amongst members of society to achieve the object of establishing a Mughal Order as it existed prior to the British taking over…' The counsel for the accused, Advocate Mohammad Tahir, told the court that his client was working as a volunteer with a human rights organisation and that he conducted legal awareness programmes. The lawyer contended that the appellant had not perpetrated anything that could fall within the definition of unlawful activities as defined under UAPA. However, the High Court said the case did not prima facie call for the court's intervention before the completion of the trial. 'When we examined the material, we are of the opinion that it is for the trial Court to decide it on the basis of the evidence as to what is the material available to prove or otherwise the charges which have been framed. But prima facie, when examined, then the act of the appellant cannot be said to be such that calls for this Court's intervention without completion of the trial,' the High Court observed.
India Gazette
3 days ago
- Politics
- India Gazette
Remark against Col Sofiya Qureshi: SC says stay order on arrest of minister Shah to continue; closes HC suo moto proceedings
New Delhi [India], May 28 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday extended its interim order on stay on BJP minister Kunwar Vijay Shah's arrest for his remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who had briefed the media about Operation Sindoor against Pakistan. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotishwar Singh also closed the suo moto proceedings initiated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Shah's remarks as the apex court is seized of the matter. 'Let High Court close the proceedings in view of case here (Supreme Court). Let there shall be no parallel proceedings,' the bench said in its order. During the hearing of the case, the bench perused the status report submitted by DIG Police which stated that SIT of three IPS officers was constituted in pursuant of apex court order and investigation started on May 21. The bench said the SIT report states that more material collected, statements of witness recorded and probe is in initial stage. 'Status report by DIG Police has been filed. It is stated that SIT of three IPS officers constituted and investigation conducted on May 21. More material collected. Script of speech prepared and mobile phone seized. Witness statements recorded. Probe is in initial stage... Let the investigation continue and the status report be filed then. Interim order to continue,' the bench stated in its order and posted the matter for hearing in July. Earlier, the apex court had slammed Shah for his remarks against Colonel Qureshi and ordered the constitution of a SIT of three IPS officers to probe the matter. It ordered an SIT comprising three senior IPS officers of Madhya Pradesh cadre, who do not belong to the state, and one of whom would be a woman officer to probe. The bench had termed minister's remarks as 'filthy, crass and shameful' and rejected the public apology offered by him as insincere. 'The nation is ashamed of you (Shah). Redemption is yours to seek,' Justice Kant had said. The apex court had stayed Shah's arrest and asked him to join and cooperate the investigation. The apex court was hearing a plea filed by Shah challenging Madhya Pradesh High Court suo moto order for registration of FIR against him for his remarks against Colonel Qureshi. Shah's counsel had said that he has publicly apologised for his remarks. On May 14, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had ordered registration of FIR against him for his remarks Qureshi. The High Court took suo moto cognisance of the controversial statement of the minister and ordered police to register an FIR against the minister. Taking suo moto cognisance of the controversial statement of the minister, the High Court on May 14 ordered police to register FIR against him. An FIR was registered against him under sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) after the High Court order. The High Court had said that if the FIR is not registered by May 14 evening, the court may contemplate proceeding against the Director General of Police of the State for contempt of the order. On May 15, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had slammed the police over the FIR registered against Shah while terming it 'gross subterfuge' on the state's part. It had said that it will monitor the case without interfering in the investigation and posted it for hearing on June 16. The controversy arose after a video clip of Shah's speech went viral on social media. In his clarification, Shah had said his comments were taken out of context and were meant to praise Colonel Qureshi's bravery. (ANI)
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
SC closes proceedings before MP HC against Vijay Shah for his remarks on Col Sofiya Qureshi
The Supreme Court halted proceedings against Madhya Pradesh minister Vijay Shah in the High Court regarding his remarks against Col Sofiya Qureshi. The court is now overseeing the matter and has requested a status report from the SIT formed to investigate the case. Interim directions, including the stay of Shah's arrest, have been extended, with further hearings scheduled for July. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered closure of proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court against state minister Vijay Shah for his remarks against Indian Army officer Col Sofiya Qureshi , saying it is now looking into the matter. A partial working day bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta asked for a status report from the special investigation team (SIT) that was constituted by the Madhya Pradesh government in compliance with the top court's earlier SC noted that the SIT has seized some devices and started its bench was informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that parallel proceedings were going on before the high court against the top court said that since it is now seized of the matter, the proceedings before the high court stand closed. The interim directions passed on May 19, including the stay of arrest of Shah, stand extended, it posted the matter for further hearing in the second week of bench refused to allow any intervention in the matter, saying it does not want to politicise the May 19, the top court chided Shah and constituted a three-member SIT to probe the FIR lodged against came under fire after a video, which was circulated widely, showed him allegedly making objectionable remarks against Col Qureshi, who gained nationwide prominence along with another woman officer, Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, during the media briefings on Operation Madhya Pradesh High Court rebuked Shah for passing "scurrilous" remarks and using "language of the gutters" against Col Qureshi, and ordered police to file an FIR against him on the charge of promoting enmity and drawing severe condemnation, Shah expressed regret and said that he respects Col Qureshi more than his sister.
