The Bombay High Court examined a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, filed against a man and his parents. The petitioners argued that the minor girl involved had married the accused and had a child with him, and that these developments should justify the dismissal of the criminal case. The Court rejected this contention, emphasizing that marriage between the victim and the accused does not automatically absolve the accused of liability under POCSO. The Court noted that the consent of a minor is legally irrelevant, and criminal liability may still arise regardless of subsequent personal or relational changes.
The facts before the Court revealed that the girl was under eighteen years of age at the time of the alleged offences, while the accused was 29 years old. The marriage took place under Muslim rites with the consent of both families, and a child was born thereafter. Despite these circumstances, the Court held that the accused had committed offences by taking the minor girl away from her legal guardians before she attained majority. The age difference and the minor’s inability to provide legally valid consent made the acts criminal under POCSO and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The Court stressed that protective statutes are designed to shield minors from exploitation, and personal arrangements such as marriage cannot undermine statutory safeguards.
The Court further held that the petition did not demonstrate the “exceptional circumstances” necessary for quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court reinforced the principle that the purpose of POCSO is to provide absolute protection to children, and exceptions based on marriage or childbirth are inconsistent with the legislative intent. The Court referenced Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding minors’ rights, noting that the Union government had opposed lowering the age of consent, reflecting a clear intention to maintain robust legal protections.
Ultimately, the Bombay High Court refused to quash the FIR, reaffirming the primacy of statutory protections for minors under POCSO. The judgment clarified that neither marriage to the accused nor the birth of a child can negate criminal responsibility for offences committed against a minor. The Court’s ruling underscores the strict enforcement of child protection laws and the limited scope for invoking personal or familial circumstances to circumvent legal obligations designed to safeguard children.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.