Unless Central Government Clarifies Stand On Consensual Adolescence Love Relations, Such Cases Under POCSO Cannot Quashed: Bombay High Court
The Bombay Excessive Court docket noticed that except the matter is clarified by the Central Authorities upon instructions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court docket, the Court docket mustn’t contemplate such circumstances whereby the query is of adolescence love.
An software was filed looking for quashing of proceedings underneath the Safety of Kids from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) stating that there was consensual love relations between the lady (aged 17 years previous) and boy (aged 26 years).
The Bench of Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh and Justice Vibha Kankanwadi noticed, “If the Courts begin accepting {that a} pretty main boy of age 25 years on-wards takes such step of taking away the lady who’s a minor after which now comes with the defence of adolescent love, then it is not going to be good signal from the authorized viewpoint, as a result of specific acts are legislated with sure goals and objects. Now except the issues are clarified by the Central Authorities upon instructions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court docket, we should always not contemplate such circumstances (we’re carving out these circumstances whereby each the events are adolescent and harmless).”
Advocate Dhananjay M. Shinde represented the Applicant, whereas Advocates V.Ok. Kotecha and Narayan Y. Chavan represented the Respondents.
Case Temporary
An FIR was lodged after the knowledge was given by the Hospital {that a} minor lady delivered a baby to Police. It was the case of the Applicant that the boy and the lady ran away as dad and mom from each side weren’t in favour of their marriage after which they carried out marriage in a Temple in 2023.
In her affidavit-in-reply, the minor lady submitted that on the time of marriage she was of understanding age and if the applicant is prosecuted and punished then she herself and he or she would undergo as there isn’t a one to take care of them.
Nevertheless, the State contended that the Applicant had the data in regards to the age of the lady and despite that in addition to the truth that there was no consent to the mentioned marriage both from the dad and mom of the lady or from his personal dad and mom, he had kidnapped her from the authorized custody of her dad and mom.
Court docket’s Evaluation
The Court docket opined that the current case is the basic instance and one of many case whereby the burning subject of kid marriage is concerned. The Court docket additional referred to Re: Right To Privacy of Adolescents (2025), wherein the Supreme Court docket has proven concern concerning criminalization of consensual adolescent relationships underneath POCSO Act.
The Division bench highlighted that the article with which the POCSO Act was launched was launched to guard youngsters from sexual assault, sexual harassment and youngster pornography and supply for institution of Particular Courts for trial of such offences.
Nevertheless, the Court docket noticed, “The actual fact which can’t be brushed apart is that the applicant was round 26 years of age on the time of alleged marriage. At the least he must have understood that he ought to wait until the lady attains 18 years of age. Then despite having data that the lady is minor, when he takes her away from the authorized custody of her dad and mom, from that time itself he commits the offence. Merely as a result of now the lady has given beginning to the daughter, we’re of the opinion that this could not wipe out the acts of the applicant.”
Moreover, the Court docket mentioned that if the Courts begin accepting {that a} main boy of age 25 years on-wards takes such step of taking away the lady who’s a minor and comes with the defence of adolescent love, then it is not going to be good signal from the authorized viewpoint, as a result of specific acts are legislated with sure goals and objects.
“We, subsequently, don’t discover this to be a match case the place we should always train our powers underneath Part 482 of the Code of Felony Process by making the case as of remarkable circumstances”, the Court docket noticed.
Accordingly, the Court docket rejected the Utility.
Trigger Title: X V. State of Maharashtra (Impartial Quotation 2025:BHC-AUG:16016-DB)
Look
Applicant: Advocate Dhananjay M. Shinde
Respondents: Advocate V.Ok. Kotecha for Respondent No. 1 and Advocate Narayan Y. Chavan for Respondent No. 2.
