‘Capable Of Making Conscious Decision’: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Class XII Student's POCSO Case Against 30-Yr-Old Man

Observing that a person in the age group of 17-18 would be capable of making conscious decisions regarding his or her well-being, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a rape case against a 30-year-old. The case was filed by a class XII student, aged 17 years and 10 months, last year.

“As per prosecution story, she is minor. This Court looking into the physical and mental development of an adolescent of that age group, would consider it logical that such a person is capable of making conscious decision as regard his or her well-being. Prima facie, it appears that there is no mens rea involved,” said Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal.

The bench relied on Vijayalakshmi & Anr. v. State Rep. By. Inspector of Police, All women Police Station while making the observation. It was hearing a petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of the FIR registered at Police Station- Padav, District, Gwalior under Sections 376, 506 of IPC as well as under Sections 3, 4 of POCSO Act.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner and prosecutrix developed friendship through Facebook and thereafter he started talking to her on phone. In December 2020, the petitioner called the prosecutrix to meet him and took her to a hotel where he allegedly committed sexual assault and pressured her for physical intercourse. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, on several occasions the petitioner committed sexual intercourse by threatening to make her obscene pictures viral and also made a false promise of marriage making her believe that he is unmarried. In 2022, he allegedly told her that he is already married and therefore cannot marry her.

The counsel for petitioner submitted that a false FIR has been lodged after one year and if any intercourse was done, the same was consensual. Opposing the plea to set aside the case, the prosecution argued that the case cannot be quashed because the prosecutrix is a minor.

Rejecting the argument of prosecution, the court said, “Be that as it may, at this juncture, this Court is of the opinion that the proceeding of the case before the trial Court would serve no purpose in the peculiar facts and circumstances. On due consideration being given to the submission of the parties, the prayer of the petitioner is hereby allowed.”

Case Title: Kailash Sharma v. State of MP & Ors

Advocate Rajmani Bansal appeared for petitioner and Pramod Pachori for state.

Click Here To Read/Download Order