The Delhi High Court dismissed a Section 528 (BNSS) petition seeking quashing of FIR for offences under Sections 376 IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act, and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
The petition was filed by the accused, including the purported husband (Petitioner No. 1) and in-laws of the victim, seeking quashing of FIR based on alleged consensual sexual relationship and purported minor’s marriage. The FIR was registered on 19 July 2023 after investigation following a domestic violence helpline call. Applicable sections involved sexual assault of a minor under POCSO, rape under IPC, and prohibition of child marriage.
The case evolved from an FIR initiated after police inquiry found the couple was living as husband and wife, with the victim being a minor confirmed by Child Welfare Committee and medical reports. The victim was married to Petitioner No.1 allegedly with parents’ consent when she was about 16 years 5 months old. She was pregnant during police investigation. The victim gave a statement under Section 164 CrPC denying allegations and withdrawing legal action. Despite the victim’s present wishes, criminal proceedings continued.
The Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula emphasized that under POCSO Act, the concept of consent is legally invalid for persons below 18 years. The Act presumes commission of offence if sexual acts with a child are established. The Court rejected arguments for quashing based on consensual relationships, highlighting protection of minors as legislative intent.
The Court highlighted that the presumptions imposed under Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO impose are in favour of the child’s protection. The Court also stressed that retrospective legitimization of child marriage or sexual relations via continued cohabitation or victim’s present stance is impermissible, as the statutory mandate to protect children overrides equities or consensual claims in such cases.
The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the FIR and criminal proceedings against the accused. It underscored that legal protections for minors cannot be circumvented by claims of consensual relationships or family settlement. The Court clarified that its observations do not prejudice the trial’s merit and proceedings will continue as per law.
Appearances:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vishal Kumar, Mr. Pawan Kapoor and Ms. Shubhangi Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP