What was decided about Section 377 IPC between spouses?

The Court said that after the 2013 changes to Section 375 IPC, the same acts cannot be re-labeled as Section 377 between a husband and wife where the marital exception applies.

How did the Court view the FIR in this case?

The FIR lacked dates and specifics and appeared retaliatory. Following Bhajan Lal principles, it was treated as mala fide and quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

What role did tribal customs play?

The Court accepted that tribal customs may allow a second marriage. So, the marriage was not treated as void only because formal divorce was pending.

Did Navtej Singh Johar affect this case?

Yes. Consensual intimacy, even non-traditional, is not criminal under Section 377. The idea of “against the order of nature” has narrowed.

What is the key takeaway on Section 375 vs 377?

Section 375 (post-2013) is the specific, updated rule on penetration. In marital settings where Exception 2 applies, Section 377 does not simultaneously apply.

Umang Singhar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2023)

Section 375 vs 377 IPC in a marital setting, tribal customs, and quashing of a retaliatory FIR — in simple classroom English.

MP High Court 2023 Single Judge (Justice Sanjay Dwivedi) NA Criminal Law & Procedure ~7 min read

CrPC IPC

Author: Gulzar Hashmi | Location: India | Published: 11 Jul 2025

Quick Summary

The Madhya Pradesh High Court explained how Section 375 (after 2013) and Section 377 should be read in a marriage. If the marital exception to Section 375 applies, the same act cannot be punished again as “unnatural sex” under Section 377. The FIR here looked vindictive and vague, so the Court quashed it using Section 482 CrPC.

Issues

Is Section 377 IPC applicable between husband and wife after the 2013 changes to Section 375 IPC?
Does the wife’s complaint amount to malicious prosecution?
Are second marriages of Scheduled Tribe members valid under custom despite pending divorce?
Should the FIR be quashed under Section 482 CrPC?

Rules

IPC Section 375 (post-2013): Covers vaginal, anal, and oral penetration; Exception 2 applies to husband-wife.
IPC Section 377: Scope narrowed; consensual adult intimacy not criminal after Navtej Singh Johar.
CrPC Section 482: High Court can quash FIRs to prevent abuse of process (Bhajan Lal principles).
Customary Law: Valid tribal customs can recognize second marriage.

Where Section 375’s marital exception applies, the same act is not re-labeled as Section 377 for prosecution.

Facts (Timeline)

The petitioner, a sitting MLA, married the complainant on 16 Apr 2022 while divorce with the first wife was still pending.

The complainant alleged cruelty and “unnatural sex” during marriage; the FIR cited Sections 294, 323, 376(2)(n), 377, 498-A, and 506 IPC.

The petitioner said the FIR was a counterblast to a civil damages suit; the complaint had no dates, times, or medical proof.

Timeline of the Umang Singhar case events

Arguments

Appellant

Complaint was vindictive; facts were vague and unsupported.
Post-2013 Section 375 covers penetration; Section 377 cannot re-criminalize marital intimacy.
Tribal customs allow second marriage; the union was not void.

Respondent

Serious allegations require trial, not quashing.
Section 377 can apply to “unnatural” acts.
Second marriage during pending divorce should be treated as invalid.

Judgment

The Court held that after the 2013 amendment, Section 375 is the specific provision covering all forms of penetration. With Exception 2 for husband-wife, the same conduct cannot be prosecuted again as “unnatural sex” under Section 377. Relying on principles of implied repeal and specificity, the Court favored Section 375 in marital contexts.

The FIR was found to be a counterblast and lacked particulars. Applying Bhajan Lal, the High Court quashed the FIR under Section 482 CrPC. The Court also recognized tribal customs permitting a second marriage, so the marriage was not void only because the earlier divorce was pending.

Ratio

Section 375 (post-2013) governs penetration; with marital exception, Section 377 does not apply to the same act between spouses. FIRs that are vague and retaliatory can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Why It Matters

Clarifies overlap between Sections 375 and 377 in marriage.
Prevents double criminalization of the same marital act.
Affirms High Court power to stop abusive prosecutions.
Respects valid tribal customs on marriage.

Key Takeaways

Specific over general: Section 375 (amended) prevails in marital penetration cases.
Marital exception matters: No parallel use of Section 377.
Vague FIRs fail: Courts can quash under Section 482 CrPC.
Custom counts: Recognized tribal customs can validate second marriage.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “375 Rules, 377 Rests.”

Rule: Post-2013, 375 covers penetration.
Rest: In marriage, 377 does not re-apply.
Rescue: Abusive FIRs → quash under 482.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can Section 377 be used between spouses when Section 375 (with marital exception) covers the conduct?

Rule: Section 375 (amended), marital exception; narrowed Section 377; Section 482 CrPC; custom recognition.

Application: Same acts cannot be double-charged; complaint lacked particulars; custom validated marriage; prosecution looked retaliatory.

Conclusion: 377 inapplicable in this marital setting; FIR quashed under 482 to prevent abuse.

Glossary

Marital Exception: An exception under Section 375 for acts by a husband with his wife.
Implied Repeal: A newer, specific law overrides an older, general one where they clash.
Counterblast: A retaliatory legal action filed to pressure or harass the other party.