Adolescent Inter-Faith Relationship: Orissa HC Quashes POCSO Case Against Muslim Man After He Marries Victim, Says Romantic Relationship Not Coercion

The Orissa High Court has recently quashed charges, inter alia, under the stringent Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ('POCSO Act') against a Muslim man, accused of kidnapping a minor Hindu girl and having repeated sexual intercourse with her, as he later married the victim girl and started a happy matrimonial life.

Taking into account the interest of the parties vis-à-vis the prevalent law, the Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed –

“Running a trial against the petitioner in this case would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly given the fact that the victim and the petitioner have entered into a marital relationship and are living together in harmony. Sending the man to prison would not only be unjust but would also work against the best interests of the victim, as it could disrupt the peaceful life they have built together.”

Case Background

An FIR was lodged by the informant on 10.05.2022 alleging that on 09.05.2022, the petitioner kidnapped her minor daughter and took away gold ornaments and cash worth Rs.8,000/- from their house. Accordingly, a case was registered under Sections 363/366/376(2)(n) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the trial Court took cognizance of the offences.

While the matter stood thus, the petitioner and the victim solemnised marriage after the girl attained majority. It was submitted that both of them are now leading a happy marital life and the victim is also reluctant to prosecute the matter any further. It was also submitted that both of them had a romantic relationship, which was opposed by their respective families for religious differences, which culminated into the FIR.

However, later both of them solemnized marriage by leaving their respective homes. It was also conveyed to the Court that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the family members of the victim girl have also supported their marriage and are not desirous of pursuing the criminal case against the petitioner anymore.

Court's Observations

To decide the merits of the quashing petition, the Court first delved into the difference between 'sexual exploitation' and 'adolescent love affair'.

“Adolescent love is a conceptual romantic relationship often lead to sexual encounter. However, there is no element of coercion, force or manipulation to drag someone to indulge in sexual activities for personal gratification. If the accused is in a dominating position of power or trust, coerces, forces or manipulates another into sexual activities for personal gratification, financial gain or any other benefit that could only be a case of exploitation. But same age group adolescents falling in love, eloped and married shouldn't be criminalized,” it observed.

Justice Mishra referred to his own judgment involving similar issues in Rosalin Rout v. State of Odisha, 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 29 which comprehensively addressed the importance of personal reconciliation and the potential to allow quashing of proceedings where the romantic adolescent relationship turn into a happy conjugal life. He had therein laid down a broad guideline to be followed in petitions seeking to quash POCSO charges in adolescent romantic relationships.

The Court held that in cases involving sexual exploitation, there is no question of quashing the proceedings since such offences have serious implications on the society as a whole. But, where an adolescent love has evolved into a relationship, which is duly acknowledged by societal norms, the situation differs significantly.

“In such instances, where the relationship has been matured to marriage and accepted by society, quashing the proceedings is not only justifiable but may also be in the interest of upholding the principles of reconciliation and personal autonomy, as emphasized in the Rosalin Rout (supra) judgment.”

In the present set of facts, the Court was of the view that continuation of legal proceedings would serve no legitimate purpose and it would only perpetuate unnecessary hardship to both the parties.

“The facts here do not involve heinous or grave offences that have a significant societal impact rather the case remained in the personal realm, and thus, it would be more appropriate to apply these principles to the current matter, as the reconciliation reflects a positive resolution,” it said.

Resultantly, the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner were quashed, allowing him as well as the victim to lead a peaceful conjugal life bereft of legal barriers.

Case Title: Fayazuddin Khan @ Badal Khan v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No: CRLMC No. 3850 of 2024

Date of Judgment: March 04, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 43

Click Here To Read/Download Order