Application Of Statutes Must Be Based In Reality: Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes POCSO Case Against Youth For Consensually Impregnating Minor Wife

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed a rape case against a husband who was accused of committing sexual intercourse consensually with his minor wife, observing that application of statutes like the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) cannot be divorced from the reality of the situation.

A young couple visited a government hospital, where doctors found that the minor wife was pregnant and reported it to the police in view of Section 19 of the POCSO Act. It was stated that the couple was married with the blessings of their families and there were not any accusations against the husband. However, an FIR was registered and the man was arrested.

While noting the plight of the young consensually married couple, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The genesis of the instant FIR lies in the reporting of respondent no. 2's (minor wife) pregnancy by the doctors under Section 19 of the POCSO Act. While the intent behind the statutes criminalising sexual exploitation of women, especially children is noble in all senses of the term, it must be understood that application of such statutes cannot be divorced from the reality of the situation. The criminal proceedings have wreaked havoc on the lives of the instant petitioner and his wife."

The Court observed that as per Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, "the marriage between two persons who do not satisfy the age criterion does not become void ab inito. Such a marriage would be voidable at the instance of the minor party. Therefore, in absence of such declaration in view of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the marriage subsists and the husband can be the legal guardian of his minor wife."

It said that if the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are allowed to continue, not only will it lead to unnecessary incarceration of the petitioner but also leave the minor wife bereft of financial and emotional support.

The Court was hearing the plea of a man under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of FIR lodged under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act at Police Station Sarangpur, Chandigarh.

 An FIR was registered at the instance of doctors who found that the minor wife of the man was 8 months pregnant. It was contended by the man that the FIR was registered, citing his wife as the complainant, without her consent and forced her to sign some documents. Consequently, the police arrested the petitioner, without verifying any of the documents. The couple also lost their newborn baby due to his deteriorated health.

Thereafter his bail plea was rejected by the Special Court and the High Court took suo moto cognisance of the matter.

The High Court directed the State in March 2023 to record the statements of the couple and their families before the concerned Court and asked Legal Aid Counsel to file a petition under Section 482 CrPC to get the FIR quashed in accordance with the law.

A further direction was also given to the Legal Service Authority, Chandigarh, to give compensation to the victim for undergoing such trauma, in which she has lost the child for no fault of her.

In compliance with the directions, a compromise was arrived at wherein it was stated that there is no ill will between the parties and the victim has no objections if the FIR is quashed.

The Counsel for the petitioner contended that even though the wife is a minor and had not attained the age of majority, the sexual contact between her and the petitioner was consensual and the incident is devoid of any mens rea as the couple are cohabitating as legally wedded couple.

On the other hand, the State Counsel submitted that the petitioner's wife was 8 months pregnant at the time of registration of the FIR, which is sufficient to invoke the POCSO Act as well as attract Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. Since the girl was a minor, her consent for the sexual act at the time holds no relevance. 

After considering the submissions, the Court noted that the alleged victim has been happily married to the petitioner and has categorically stated that she neither moved any complaint nor desires further action against the petitioner. The petitioner's wife "has attained the age of majority and wants to continue with her matrimonial life," it added.

Placing reliance on the Delhi High Court's decision in Court on its Own Motion(Lajja Devi) v. State [2012(4) CCR 72], the Court said that the marriage between two persons who do not satisfy the age criterion does not become void ab inito, under Hindu Marriage Act.

Such a marriage would be voidable at the instance of the minor party. Therefore, in the absence of such declaration in view of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the marriage subsists and the husband can be the legal guardian of his minor wife, it added.

 Purpose Of Justice Would Be Defeated If Viewed In Mechanical Form

Justice Brar highlighted that the overarching aim of justice is to serve what is deserved and accountability and fairness are identifying features of the same. However, the said purpose would be defeated if justice is viewed in its absolute mechanical form, devoid of context and nuance. It said:

"While justice in itself is a dynamic concept, directly influenced by the morality of an ever-evolving society, it can be said with certainty that absolute impartiality and lack of compassion often claims fairness as a casualty."

The Court further said that in a welfare State, it is of the utmost importance that the vulnerability of the disadvantaged is recognised and the application of justice is viewed from a renewed perspective. 

It added that the plight of this young married couple who have recently lost a child and are running from pillar to post to restore normalcy to their lives can only be truly addressed when compassion drives justice.

Consequently, the Court opined that justice can only be substantially realised if the FIR in the present case is quashed, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

Advocates Raina Godara, Abhimanyu Balyan and Neil Roberts for the petitioner.

Manish Bansal, P.P., UT, Chandigarh and  Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Addl. P.P., UT, Chandigarh.

Amit Singh Panghal, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate as Amicus Curiae.

Briz Mohan, Advocate for District Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 85

Title: XXX v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Others