Meghalaya High Court Refuses To Quash POCSO Case Against 'Husband' Of Rape Victim

Observing that the narration of the victim does not show that the sexual relationship between her and accused was consensual, the Meghalaya High Court refused to quash a case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 506 IPC r/w Section 5(j)(ii)(l)/6 of the POCSO Act against a man despite a compromise between the parties, who also claimed to be married. The victim was 13 years old when the alleged rape took place in 2019.

Justice W. Diengdoh said it is not a fit case for exercise of inherent power to scuttle the ongoing criminal proceeding as the accused "having exhibited a criminal character, he has to be processed through the system to either prove his innocence or for his guilt to be found out and at this stage, this is certainly not a case for the Court to take a lenient view of the matter, the welfare of the survivor being the prime consideration."

The court was hearing the petition under Section 482 of CrPC seeking quashing the criminal proceeding against the accused on the ground of amicable settlement between the parties. The counsel for the accused contended that the parties have been living together as husband and wife according to the local customs and were "blessed with a child who, unfortunately died a week after its birth."

However, due to some misunderstanding between the parties in January 2020, the father of his wife had lodged an FIR before the Officer In-charge Women Police Tura, West Garo Hills under Section 506 IPC r/w Section 5(j)(ii)(l)/6 of the POCSO Act, the counsel submitted.

The counsel argued that the pendency of the criminal case against the accused has caused an atmosphere of unease between the parties. It was further submitted that since the Sections involved are non-compoundable, therefore the parties have approached the High Court. The counsel also contended that since the parties have amicably settled the matter, the criminal proceedings against the accused should be quashed for the sake of peace and family unity.

The counsel for the victim’s father did not object to the quashing of the case. However, Additional PP submitted that the contents of the case diary reveal that the case of the parties is “not as simple as it was portrayed.” The prosecutor pointed out that the victim had categorically stated that she was assaulted and raped by the accused in April, 2019.

The prosecutor submitted that while she was on her way to school she was allegedly waylaid by the accused, who took her on his bike to his residence, and there committed sexual assault on her.

"This assault continued for a number of times and the victim was threatened not to reveal the same to anyone. It was only after she became pregnant and was noticed by her family members that she revealed the truth to them, upon which the respondent No.2 being her father had lodged the said FIR and she was accordingly sent for medical examination," the prosecution told the court. 

The court said the victim's statement does not in any way show that the sexual relationship or the sexual act between the two was consensual.

"Infact, the survivor had pointedly stated that she was forcibly assaulted and threatened by the petitioner No. 1 to the extent that she did not reveal the truth till her pregnancy became prominent. It is also seen from the record that the petitioner No.1, perhaps in a bit to escape the arms of the law had forced himself to stay with the survivor but, his true colours came out when he had also physically assaulted the survivor in course of their sojourn together," it added, while dismissing the petition. 

Case Title: ABM & Anr v. State of Meghalaya & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 17

For the Petitioner: Mr.A.S. Siddiqui, with Ms. A. Kharmyndai

For the Respondent:Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl. PP (R-1) Ms. Tenzing Yangkyi, Adv. (R-2

Click Here To Read/Download Order