Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed a request to quash an FIR concerning alleged sexual offences and a purported child marriage, holding that the girl was legally a minor at the relevant time and that the POCSO framework renders her consent legally inconsequential. The High Court observed that Courts cannot carve out exceptions for relationships described as near-majority or consensual when the statute treats consent of a person below 18 as irrelevant. As the record disclosed the core ingredients of the alleged offences and also involved family members for facilitating an underage marriage, the Bench directed that the prosecution continue in accordance with law.

The matter arose from a call received on helpline number 181 reporting domestic violence, which was recorded as a daily diary entry at a Delhi police station. During inquiry, police found that the male petitioner and the victim were living together as husband and wife and claimed to have married with parental consent. The Child Welfare Committee directed verification of the victim’s age, which confirmed she was a minor. Her statement under Section 164 CrPC contained no allegations of sexual assault or coercion, and she expressed no desire for legal action. A medical examination indicated pregnancy of approximately two and a half months, following which an FIR was registered for offences under the IPC, the POCSO Act, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

Also Read: No New Mining Until Aravali Mapping And Ecological Assessment Are Completed: Supreme Court Directs Centre To Prepare Sustainable Mining Plan

The petition was later filed by the accused petitioner along with family members seeking quashing of the FIR. The victim, now an adult, appeared before the Court with her infant child and stated she had been living peacefully with the petitioner and considered him her husband. The Court examined the statutory provisions defining a child under POCSO and the legal implications of sexual activity with a minor.

The Court recorded that the case presented a conflict between statutory mandates and the lived circumstances of the parties, observing that “this is precisely the kind of matter in which the statutory framework of the POCSO Act sits uneasily with lived reality and the tension between the two is stark.”

The Court noted the undisputed fact that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged sexual relationship, stating that “the legal position is not ambivalent. At the time of the incident, the victim was indisputably a child as per the definition under the POCSO Act.” It further explained that under the statutory framework, “once it is shown that the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of the occurrence and that the physical acts described in the charge fall within the contours of Sections 3 or 7, the offence is, in principle, complete.”

The Court addressed the issue of consent, affirming that POCSO does not recognise consent from a minor, recording that the Act “does not treat absence of consent as a constituent element when the victim is a child. The law proceeds on the footing that a child lacks the legal capacity to consent to sexual activity.” It added that the “apparent willingness of the child, howsoever genuine it may appear on facts, does not carry exculpatory value in determining guilt.”

The Court also referred to statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, noting that once foundational facts are established, “the court is required to presume that the accused has committed the offence and that the requisite culpable mental state was present, unless the contrary is proved.” The Court clarified that the minor’s willingness “may have a bearing on issues such as bail, sentencing, or the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in rare and hard cases, but it does not negate the ingredients of the offence.”

On the broader institutional concern, the Court stated that quashing the FIR could be perceived as legitimising child marriage, observing that such a decision “would almost inevitably be perceived as judicial endorsement of the notion that underage marriages can be insulated from legal consequences, so long as the parties subsequently present themselves as a settled family.” It also cautioned that what appears as voluntary acquiescence by a minor may be “the product of familial pressure or community expectations.”

The Court concluded that the statute did not permit carving out exceptions, recording: “This Court… cannot carve out an exception to the statute merely because the victim describes the relationship as consensual.”

Also Read: Suppression Of Material Facts Bars Relief: Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Against Customs Penalty; Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs In Alleged Poppy-Seeds Concealment Case

The Court directed that “the petition is, accordingly, dismissed along with pending application(s). Any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Vishal Kumar, Mr. Pawan Kapoor, and Ms. Shubhangi Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State.

Case Title: XXX v. State NCT of Delhi and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:10080
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 7145/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula