Bombay High Court: In the case, where the applicants, i.e. the accused and his family members, had sought an exception to challenge, at the initial stage, the First Information Report (‘FIR’) that alleged that the minor victim had been subjected to forceful sexual assault while she was still a minor, and that her marriage had been solemnised with the accused despite her age, the Division Bench of Urmila Joshi-Phalke* and Nandesh S. Deshpande, JJ., rejected the application and held that despite having knowledge that the girl was a minor, the accused had committed the offence from the moment he took her away from the legal custody of her parents. The Court concluded that the acts of the applicants could not be brushed aside merely because the girl had now given birth to a child.
Background:
The case arose from a report lodged by a Police Head Constable at Telhara Police Station, District Akola, on 01-07-2025. He had received information on 24-06-2025 that the minor victim had delivered a baby boy at Fatima Nursing Home, Akola, on 10-05-2025. At the time of marriage, the minor victim was 17 years old, and her marriage had been solemnised with the accused. It was alleged that she had been subjected to forceful sexual assault while she was a minor. Based on the report, a crime was registered against the accused and his family members for offences under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4(1) and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO Act’), and Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006
Consequently, an application was filed by the accused and his family members on the ground that there had been a love affair between the accused and the minor victim. After both families became aware of the relationship, they performed the marriage according to Muslim rites and rituals on 02-06-2024, though the minor victim had not yet completed 18 years of age. The marriage was legally registered after she attained majority. A physical relationship between them had led to the birth of a child. The minor victim raised no objection and stated that the accused had not subjected her to forceful sexual assault. She also stated that the family members had no connection with the alleged offence and supported the quashing of the FIR.
The applicants submitted that even if the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, the relationship was between two adolescents and developed out of a love affair. They stated that the marriage had already been performed with full understanding of its consequences, and if the proceedings were not quashed, it could cause a rift in the relationship, ultimately affecting the victim. The parents’ statements supported the existence of the love affair, and upon learning of it, both families solemnized the marriage. Though the victim was a minor, the applicants claimed it was a case of adolescent love, and the couple was living peacefully, urging the court to treat it as exceptional.
The application was strongly opposed by the State where it was submitted that the accused was 29 years old while the victim was below 17 years of age. It was argued that the accused had knowledge of her age, and regardless of any consent, the marriage was performed unlawfully. It was further alleged that the accused maintained a physical relationship with the minor victim, whose consent was legally irrelevant. However, the victim became pregnant and gave birth to a child, a fact not denied by either the applicants or the victim. Based on the grounds, the State contended that a prima facie case existed and the application deserved to be rejected.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Right to Privacy of Adolescents, In re, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1300 wherein the Supreme Court had shown concern regarding the criminalization of consensual adolescent relationships under the POCSO Act. The Court further relied on Right to Privacy of Adolescents, In re (supra), wherein the Central Government had submitted that the existing age of consent ought to be retained in order to give full effect to the legislative intent, protect the bodily integrity of children, and uphold the constitutional and statutory safeguards accorded to them.
The Court examined the object with which the POCSO Act had been introduced, where the primary objects were to protect all children under 18 from sexual assault, sexual harassment, and child pornography, and to provide a supportive environment for child victims. The Court noted that the question was what should be the age group to consider that it was adolescent love or love between two adolescents.
The Court, while referring to the FIR, observed that it was evident the victim had fallen in love with the accused, and since both families had accepted their relationship, the marriage was performed. The Court further noted that although the victim stated the marriage was solemnised as per Muslim rites and religion, she had been below 18 years of age at the time of marriage. The Court also pointed out that when she delivered the child, she was still below 18 years of age. However, the Court emphasised that the fact which could not be brushed aside was that the accused was 29 years old, and at the time of the incident or alleged marriage, he had been approximately 27 years of age. At the very least, the Court held, he ought to have understood that he should have waited until the girl attained 18 years of age.
The Court noted that despite having knowledge that the girl was a minor, when he had taken her away from the legal custody of her parents, from that point itself, he had committed the offence. The Court highlighted that merely because the girl had now given birth to a child the acts of the applicants could not be brushed aside. The Court further observed that as the consent of the minor was irrelevant, and the stand taken by the Central Government before the Supreme Court also showed that it would be against the mandate of the Constitution, as law was not for individuals but for society at large.
The Court emphasised that if a relief provided under statute could be obtained only by following a certain procedure made therein for that purpose, that procedure must be followed if the applicant was to obtain that relief. Justice had to be done according to law.
The Court, therefore, while rejecting the application, held that in light of the above object behind the enactment of the POCSO Act, and considering that the victim had been a minor at the time of marriage as well as when she had been subjected to the physical relationship, the Court did not find this to be a fit case where the powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 must be exercised by treating the case as one of exceptional circumstance.
[X v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application (Apl) No. 1128 of 2025, decided on 26-09-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke
