Sexual Activity With Minor Based On "Bedrock Of Love": Meghalaya High Court Quashes POCSO Case

The facts which led to the present matter were that the complainant-father had filed an FIR stating that his minor daughter aged 16 years had gone missing and was allegedly raped by the petitioner-accused. Subsequent to the FIR, investigation was launched and statements of witnesses including the alleged victim were recorded, under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC.

Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer, filed a chargesheet, making out a case against the petitioner for offences under Section 363 of the IPC read with Sections 3(a), 4, 9(n) and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Based on the statements made by the alleged victim, the Investigating Officer also impleaded the complainant-father as an accused under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.

Subsequently, the Special Judge, POCSO framed charges against the accused under Sections 375 and 376 of the IPC r/w Sections 3(a), 5(1) and 6 of the POCSO Act and under Section 354 IPC r/w Sections 7, 9 and 10 of POCSO Act against the complainant-father.

The alleged victim appeared before the Court and argued that she was in a love relationship with the petitioner-accused and that there was no question of force or assault being involved as far as their sexual relationship was concerned. She further submitted that the relationship between her and the petitioner-accused was consensual and voluntary. Accordingly, she prayed for quashing the case against her petitioner-accused on such grounds, and against her complainant-father on account of relational proximity.

The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that since the girl was a minor, sexual relationships between the petitioner-accused and her were punishable offences. Accordingly, he was liable both for kidnapping or abduction as well as for sexual assault on the victim.

The Court took note of the statement of the girl who stated that the sexual relationship was based on the bedrock of love and of the fact that the alleged victim had in fact married the petitioner-accused upon attaining majority. The single bench of Justice W. Diengdoh noted:

"In cases of this nature, since it is evident that the alleged aggrieved person has indicated that she is no longer interested in pursuing with the matter and all those who are involved are also not keen to prosecute the matter, it may perhaps be a futile exercise for the prosecution to ensure conviction of the accused under such circumstances."

The Court relied on the decision in Vijayalakshmi and Anr. v. State, where the Madras High Court had observed that the object of POCSO was not to bring within its mandate cases involving romantic relationships between teenagers and adolescents. The Court also relied on the Calcutta High Court decision in Ranjit Rajbanshi v. State of West Bengal.

"In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer of the petitioner can be allowed by an exercise of the inherent power of this Court to meet the ends of justice. The petition is accordingly allowed, the proceedings of Special POCSO Case No. 52 of 2020 before the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Shillong is hereby quashed," said the Court.

Case Title: Shri Manik Sunar and 2 Others v. State of Meghalaya

Case No: Crl. Petn. No. 43 of 2022

Coram: Justice W. Diengdoh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 45 

Click Here To Read/Download Order