The Delhi High Court ruled that courts cannot create exceptions for “near majority, consensual relationships” in POCSO cases, stressing that sexual acts with minors remain illegal despite marriage or later reconciliation. The Court refused to quash the FIR against the husband.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The case highlights the judiciary’s firm stance against underage marriages and sexual relationships involving minors.
Delhi High Court’s Observation
Justice Sanjeev Narula emphasised that an offence under the POCSO Act is complete the moment sexual activity with a person below 18 is proved, regardless of alleged consent or subsequent marriage.
The Court stated:
“Since the Parliament has fixed 18 as the age below which the law refuses to recognise sexual consent, this Court… cannot… write in a judge-made exception for ‘near majority, consensual relationships.’ To do so would be to cross the line from interpretation into legislation.”
This observation makes it clear that courts cannot dilute statutory protections for minors based on the personal circumstances of the parties involved.
Background of the Case
The husband had filed a petition seeking to quash charges under:
- Section 376 IPC (rape)
- Section 6 POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault)
- Sections 9 & 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (punishment for male adult marrying a child and for solemnising child marriage)
The FIR was lodged after the wife accused him of domestic violence. Investigations revealed that the wife was a minor and pregnant at the time of the incident. Although she later retracted her allegations and expressed her wish to live with her husband as a family, the Court refused to accept this as grounds for quashing.
The Court noted that subsequent marriage or deepening of the relationship cannot retrospectively legalise sexual intercourse with a minor. The “consent” of a minor, it stated, may often be influenced by familial or social pressure.
The Court warned that accepting such arguments would send a dangerous message, potentially allowing offenders to bypass the law by marrying their victims later.
Justice Narula said:
“To snuff out the prosecution at the threshold would risk sending a message that child marriages and sexual relationships with minors can be retrospectively sanitised… That would sit squarely at odds with the legislative purpose of both POCSO and the child marriage law.”
The Court acknowledged the emotional and personal dimensions of the couple’s situation but emphasised that statutory mandates cannot be overridden.
“This is… one of those hard cases where the pull of equity is strong, but the command of the statute is stronger.”
With these observations, the Delhi High Court dismissed the quashing petition, allowing the criminal proceedings against the husband to continue.
Appearance:
For the petitioner: Advocates Vishal Kumar, Pawan Kapoor and Shubhangi Singh
For State: Additional Public Prosecutor Hemant Mehla
Case Title:
Prince Kumar Sharma And Others V. The State NCT of Delhi And Another
CRL.M.C. 7145/2025 & CRL.M.As. 30024-30025/2025
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Fake Rape
