XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025

The petitioner-husband was accused of committing sexual intercourse with his separated wife (before divorce became effective) and Forcefully expelling her from the marital home afterward.

He was charged under section 376B IPC & Section 31(1) of the DV Act.

The Magistrate took cognizance of both offences based on the final police report, without a formal complaint by the wife.

The petitioner challenged the criminal proceedings before the Kerala High Court, citing non-compliance with Section 198B CrPC.

Justice G. Girish held that the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the 376B IPC offence illegally, as no complaint from the wife was filed.

Section 198B CrPC expressly bars courts from taking cognizance of a 376B offence in any other manner than upon a complaint from the wife.

The DV Act offence under Section 31(1) appeared to have occurred at a later stage, and therefore should have been part of a separate FIR.

Hence, the proceedings were quashed as they violated procedural safeguards.

The Kerala High Court reinforced the procedural mandate under Section 198B CrPC, which is a jurisdictional requirement for prosecuting Section 376B IPC cases.

The judgment reaffirms that special procedural protections exist when dealing with offences arising in marital relationships, especially where consent and separation are legally nuanced.

It underlines that police cannot substitute a wife’s formal complaint with a final report—judicial cognizance cannot be based on police report alone in such cases.

The Court also showed procedural rigor by separating distinct incidents into separate FIRs, reinforcing that criminal charges should be compartmentalized based on facts and timelines.

The ruling ensures that while procedural lapses may invalidate current proceedings, it does not bar future lawful prosecution, balancing due process with access to justice.