Bombay High Court: In an application seeking quashing of an FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceedings registered under Section 376, 376(2)(j) and (n), Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 and 17, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), a Single Judge Bench of Vrushali V. Joshi, J., quashed the POCSO case citing subsequent marriage, pregnancy and lack of force allegations by the prosecutrix and held that the criminal proceedings against the accused and his parents must be ended in the interest of complete justice.
Also Read: Del HC Guideline on Quashing POCSO FIR in Consensual Relationship
Background
The prosecutrix, aged about 15 years, used to travel to school in a rickshaw driven by the accused. It was alleged that the accused proposed to her and took her to his house, where she stayed for one day. Thereafter, he dropped her at her grandmother’s house. On the following day, the accused, along with his parents, went to the victim’s house and asked her to stay with them. The prosecutrix willingly accompanied the accused to his house and stayed with him, during which physical relations were established. It was further alleged that the accused was aware that the prosecutrix was a minor and belonged to a Scheduled Caste. Subsequently, the accused dropped her at her maternal aunt’s house; however, she was not allowed to stay there and returned to the accused’s house. Thereafter, the accused took her to the house of her paternal aunt. On the advice of the paternal aunt, the prosecutrix lodged a complaint, pursuant to which the crime came to be registered.
The applicants contended that the entire case arose out of a love affair. After attaining majority, the prosecutrix had married the accused, was living happily with him, and was 7 months pregnant, and therefore, they prayed that the crime registered against them should be quashed. On the other hand, the State opposed the application on the ground that since the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident, her consent was immaterial under the POCSO Act. It was argued that subsequent marriage could not wipe out the offences, especially when the accused had knowledge of both her age and caste.
Analysis
The Court noted that at the time of the incident, the prosecutrix was 15 years old as per the record. However, on a careful perusal of the FIR, the Court observed that there was not a single whisper that the accused forced the prosecutrix or threatened her or had sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage. Though the victim was minor, she did not have any problem in staying with the accused and his family members. The Court also highlighted that the FIR appeared to have been lodged at the instance of the paternal aunt.
The Court opined that ordinarily FIRs registered under the POCSO Act should not be quashed considering the object of the Act. However, the Court relied on Ayyub Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 637, wherein the Supreme Court considered subsequent marriage and the birth of a child and held that continuing the criminal proceedings in such circumstances would not be proper and would disturb their family life.
The Court observed that Ayyub Malik (supra) squarely applied to the present case, as the prosecutrix had no grievance against the accused regarding their relationship, and was willingly staying with him. The Court further noted that the parties were living together happily and observed that the criminal case against the accused and his parents must be ended in the interest of complete justice. The Court also referred to K. Kirubakaran v. State of T.N., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2307, where the Supreme Court observed that in cases involving consensual relationships, strict application of penal provisions might cause injustice.
Also Read: “Bad Work” is insufficient to presume penetrative assault: Patna HC
Decision
Accordingly, the Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceedings pending before the Sessions Court, subject to applicants depositing costs of Rs.10,000/- each.
[Vijay Laxman Rotke v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application (Apl) No. 394 of 2026, decided on 29-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicants: Abuzain Tarique Sheikh, Advocate.
For the Non-applicants: N.B. Jawade, APP, Kriti G. Badani, Advocate.
