"‘Adolescent Love Shouldn’t Be Criminalized’: Orissa High Court Quashes POCSO Case, Cites Lack of ‘Coercion, Force, or Manipulation’"
Safiya Malik
The Orissa High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, stating that the case arose from an adolescent love affair that later culminated in marriage. Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, observed that the case lacked elements of coercion, force, or manipulation and, therefore, did not fall within the category of heinous offences that warrant strict prosecution under the POCSO Act. The court noted that the accused and the alleged victim had entered into a marital relationship upon the latter attaining majority and were now living together as husband and wife.
The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings arising out of Nayagarh P.S. Case No. 60 of 2022, corresponding to T.R. Case No. 135 of 2022, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under the POCSO Act, Nayagarh.
Also Read: Limitation Is Not Meant to Defeat a Substantive Right": Supreme Court Restores Consumer Complaint
The prosecution’s case was based on an FIR lodged on May 10, 2022, by the complainant, who alleged that on May 9, 2022, the petitioner had kidnapped her minor daughter and taken away gold ornaments and ₹8,000 in cash from their residence. Based on these allegations, a case was registered under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Upon the completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet, and the trial court took cognizance of the offences.
During the pendency of the trial, the alleged victim attained majority and voluntarily entered into a marital relationship with the petitioner. The complainant later expressed her willingness to withdraw the case, stating that she had no objections to quashing the proceedings.
The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Amitav Tripathy, argued that the case was a result of familial opposition to a consensual relationship due to religious differences. He submitted that both parties had voluntarily left their homes, later solemnized their marriage, and were now living harmoniously. He further contended that the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose, as the complainant and her family had reconciled with the relationship.
The State, represented by Additional Government Advocate Bibekananda Nayak, opposed the petition. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan, he argued that offences under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed solely on the basis of a compromise between the parties, as such offences are considered crimes against society at large. He submitted that the legislative intent behind the POCSO Act is to protect minors from sexual exploitation and that the case should proceed to trial irrespective of the victim’s current stance.
The High Court examined the arguments and the facts of the case, distinguishing it from cases involving sexual exploitation. Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra noted that the Supreme Court had held in Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan that heinous and serious offences could not be quashed even if the victim and the accused had settled their dispute. However, the court found that the facts of the present case were fundamentally different, as the parties had reconciled and entered into a legally recognized marriage.
Referring to the nature of adolescent relationships, the court stated:
"Sexual exploitation and adolescent love affair by its nature is distinguishable. Adolescent love is a conceptual romantic relationship often leading to sexual encounters. However, there is no element of coercion, force, or manipulation to drag someone to indulge in sexual activities for personal gratification."
The court further observed that criminalizing relationships that later culminate in marriage would not align with the objectives of justice. It cited Rosalin Rout v. State of Odisha, a previous Orissa High Court judgment, which held that legal proceedings should not disrupt the lives of individuals who have reconciled and moved forward with a stable marital relationship. The court quoted the judgment:
"The POCSO Act was enacted with the ultimate objective of prohibiting non-consensual and forced sexual relationships with children, including child sexual abuse and sexual harassment. While the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act have contributed positively to reducing instances of sexual violence against children, they have also led to an increase in vindictive litigation, with false cases being filed against individuals under the Act. However, it was never the legislature’s intention to prosecute romantic relationships between young adults."
The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, wherein the court recognized that legal proceedings in such cases could harm both parties. The court stated:
"Running a trial against the petitioner in this case would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly given the fact that the victim and the petitioner have entered into a marital relationship and are living together in harmony."
The court, considering the reconciliation between the parties and the absence of societal impact warranting prosecution, ordered:
- The criminal proceedings in Nayagarh P.S. Case No. 60 of 2022, corresponding to T.R. Case No. 135 of 2022, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under the POCSO Act, Nayagarh, are quashed.
- The CRLMC petition is allowed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Amitav Tripathy, Advocate
For the State: Bibekananda Nayak, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Fayazuddin Khan @ Badal Khan v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Number: CRLMC No. 3850 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra
[Read/Download order]
