Immature Act Of Uncontrolled Emotions: Rajasthan HC Quashes POCSO Case Against Minor's Lover

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the FIR registered against a 22-year old man under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act for impregnating a 16-year old girl, leading to delivery of a child.A single bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta noted that the minor and the accused were lovers and the sexual acts were consensual in nature. It observed,"This Court cannot and does not accord any approval or sanction to the sexual act of petitioner with the prosecutrix but then, it is a hard reality that their love affair has traversed beyond the legal and moral bounds, consequence whereof has begotten a child...The mistake or blunder which otherwise constitutes an offence has been committed due to immature act and uncontrolled emotions of two persons, out of whom, one is still a minor."The petitioner-accused had approached the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the FIR registered against him by the SHO, Devnagar, Jodhpur based on the statement of the prosecutrix-minor girl when she delivered a baby boy in a Government Hospital. In her statement, she had informed the Investigating Officer that she shared a personal relationship with the accused and it was during their love affair that both of them had voluntarily cohabited leading to pregnancy of the minor. The IO, however, registered the aforesaid FIIR, which the petitioner sought to be quashed. Neither the prosecutrix nor her parents had any grievance or grudge against the petitioner and the parties had entered into a compromise. The statement of the parents of both the parties was recorded in the Court, who expressed their remorse and helplessness and their concern about the situation of the minor delivering due to lack of maturity, or mistake. They submitted that due to societal pressure and stigma, they were not in a position to keep their grandson and that an innocent 2 months-old boy was being housed in a nursery, deprived of natural love, affection and feed from his mother, only because of the pendency of the impugned FIR. Accordingly, they agreed to the quashing of the FIR and submitted before the Court that as soon as the prosecutrix attains majority, they shall solemnise her marriage with the petitioner. The Court listed down various reasons which guided its conclusion, which were the fact that: "(i) an adolescent girl of tender age (16 years) has fallen in love with a boy of 22 years; (ii) both being immature, apparently driven by momentary emotions have fallen prey to lust, surpassing social, moral and legal limits; (iii) the complainant is the police and the girl or her family are neither aggrieved party nor complainant; (iv) the girl has been consistent in her stand that she consented to the physical relationship. Not only in her statements under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code but also before this Court, the girl unequivocally accepted that she had consented to the act; (v) their fornication though may be without legal and moral sanction, has resulted in child birth; (vi) parents of both – the girl and the boy having forgiven their respective children for their felony, intend to tie them in nuptial knot, when the prosecutrix attains marriageable age; (vii) if the prosecution continues, the petitioner is sure to face conviction, as the girl is minor. The conviction will result in 10 years of incarceration which would bring more agony and misery to the girl and her newly born son, rather than securing justice; (viii) and also because, the basic ingredient of retributive theory of punishment -"avenge for the person wronged" is completely absent." "This Court cannot be a silent spectator to or turn its back on the distressed family. If the impugned FIR is not quashed, the petitioner will have to face incarceration for at least 10 years...The petitioner's prosecution and conviction will lead to pain and tears in the eyes of the family members of both the parties and future of two families, and above all, an innocent child will be at stake, whereas, if the impugned FIR is quashed, it would serve the ends of justice" – added the High Court. Case Title: Tarun Vaishnav v. State of Rajasthan and Another Citation: S.B. Criminal Misc (Pet.) No. 6323 of 2022 Coram: Justice Dinesh MehtaCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 257 Click Here To Read/Download the Order

Immature Act Of Uncontrolled Emotions: Rajasthan HC Quashes POCSO Case Against Minor's Lover

Rahul Garg

Tags