‘16-year-old girl capable of making conscious decision for her well-being’; Meghalaya HC quashes POCSO proceedings against boyfriend

Meghalaya High Court: In a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to set aside and quash the entire proceedings of the Special (POCSO) Case against the petitioner/accused for offences under Sections 3(a) and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act, 2012’), the Single Judge Bench of W. Diengdoh J., allowed the petition and quashed the First Information Report (‘FIR’) registered against the accused and the proceedings of the Special POSCO case.

Background

In the matter at hand, the accused in the year 2020 was working at various households, including the house of the maternal aunt of the minor girl’s mother. The accused got acquainted with the minor girl. In course of their acquaintance, the two became intimate and the feelings of love started to develop and as such, a relationship ensued between them.

On 18-01-2021, at about 4:00 PM, the minor girl met the accused and the two of them then went to his house where he introduced her to his parents. After staying there for some time, the minor and the accused went to his uncle’s house where they spend the night together and had sexual intercourse. The next morning, the accused accompanied the minor to her house. However, the minor’s mother lodged an FIR against the petitioner on 19-01-2021 for offences under Sections 363 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) read with Section 3(a) and 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Court’s Decision

The Court referred to Vijayalakshmi v. State¹ wherein it was observed that, on reading of the statement of Objects and Reasons of the POCSO Act, it would show that the Act was brought into force to protect children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography, pursuant to Article 15 of the Constitution of India and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, a large array of cases filed under the POCSO Act seems to be those arising on the basis of complaints registered by the families of adolescents and teenagers who are involved in romantic relationships with each other. The scheme of the Act clearly shows that it did not intend to bring within its scope or ambit, cases of the nature where adolescents or teenagers involved in romantic relationships are concerned.

The Court said that though the alleged victim girl is a minor as admitted by her in her statement under Section 164 as well as in her deposition before the Court, looking into the physical and mental development of an adolescent of that age group, it would be logical to consider that such a person is capable of making conscious decision regarding his or her well-being as to the actual act of sexual intercourse. Further, the Court said that prima facie, it appeared that there was no mens rea involved.

Therefore, the Court opined that the proceeding of the case before the Trial Court would serve no purpose in the peculiar facts and circumstances. Thus, the Court allowed the prayer of the petitioner and quashed the FIR filed against the petitioner along with the consequent proceedings in Special (POCSO) Case. The petitioner was also discharged from any liabilities concerning the said case.

[John Franklin Shylla v. State of Meghalaya, 2023 SCC OnLine Megh 303, Decided on 21-06-2023]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the Petitioner: Advocate S. Dey and Advocate S. Deb;

For the Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor H. Kharmih, Additional Public Prosecutor S. Sengupta, Government Advocate K.P. Bhattacharjee.