Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against an accused under serious charges including rape of a minor, citing lack of evidence and significant delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR). The Court concluded that the FIR was filed more than three years after the alleged incident and that there was no forensic or supporting material to sustain the prosecution. The Bench stated that the proceedings against the accused constituted an abuse of the legal process and should not continue.

The Court held that in the absence of corroborative evidence and given the delay, invoking the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions in this matter was unwarranted. The Court directed that the appeal be allowed and the FIR and associated proceedings against the appellant be quashed. It further noted that the High Court erred in not applying the same standard to the appellant as it had in quashing proceedings against his relatives.

Also Read: Supreme Court Dismisses MSME’s Plea Against SARFAESI Proceedings | Says Framework For Revival Must Be Invoked Timely And Cannot Be Used To Stall Recovery After Default

The matter before the Supreme Court arose from a Special Leave Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 417, 376, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The appellant was accused of engaging in a sexual relationship with the complainant, who claimed she was a minor at the time.

According to the FIR, the complainant alleged that she was 15 years old when she entered into a consensual relationship with the appellant. She contended that this relationship was predicated on a promise of marriage made by the appellant. The complainant claimed that the appellant later reneged on his promise and that she was subsequently humiliated by his parents. Following this, she lodged an FIR not only against the appellant but also against his father, mother, and uncle.

The prosecution’s primary assertion was that since the complainant was a minor at the time of the relationship, her consent was immaterial under the law, and the act amounted to statutory rape. Consequently, the case was filed invoking Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which addresses aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor.

The appellant, however, sought to have the FIR quashed by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court, after evaluating the material presented, decided to quash the proceedings against the appellant’s father, mother, and uncle but refused to do so for the appellant himself.

Subsequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court for relief. He contended that the delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the absence of any corroborative or forensic evidence, rendered the case untenable. He further submitted that the relationship was consensual and that the prosecutrix had willingly engaged with him over a period of time.

The State and the complainant vehemently opposed the appeal. Their primary argument hinged on the legal position that consent by a minor is no consent in the eyes of law, and therefore, the appellant was liable for prosecution under both the IPC and POCSO Act.

The Supreme Court carefully examined the submissions of all parties and the contents of the FIR. It recorded that the complaint alleged a consensual relationship dating back more than three years from the time of filing the FIR, during which the complainant was allegedly a minor.

The Court observed: "The appellant before this Court is an accused in a case under Sections 417, 376, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act." It noted that the prosecutrix alleged she was 15 years old when she agreed to be in a relationship with the appellant, which she claimed was based on a promise of marriage.

It further recorded: "The prosecutrix was constrained to file an FIR, not only against the appellant, but also against his father, mother and uncle." However, the FIR was registered more than three years after the alleged incident, and the Court found no forensic or corroborative evidence to support the charge of rape or sexual assault.

"As regarding the rape being committed by the appellant when the prosecutrix was a minor, there is absolutely no evidence, and definitely no forensic evidence with the prosecution." the Court stated.

The Court considered prior precedents to assess whether the allegations and evidence, as presented, merited continuation of criminal prosecution. It referred to and quoted: "This Court has held in several decisions that promise to marriage and the subsequent physical relationship between the two with consent would not amount to rape and the reasons therein have been assigned." The cited cases included Prithivirajan v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 696, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108.

The Court found the delay in filing the FIR particularly significant. It noted: "Particularly the long delay in lodging the FIR itself suggest that the present criminal proceedings lodged against the appellant are nothing but an abuse of the process of law."

Given the absence of any forensic evidence and the complainant’s own admission of consensual relationship based on a marriage promise, the Court found no sustainable ground for invoking POCSO provisions. It expressed that the High Court should have applied its inherent jurisdiction to the appellant as it did for the other co-accused.

Also Read: Bombay High Court: Furlough Aimed At Reformation And Social Integration | Past Overstays Alone Cannot Justify Continued Denial Of Leave

In its final directive, the Supreme Court stated: "Under these circumstances, we allow this appeal and quash the proceedings against the appellant, as these are nothing but an abuse of the process of law."

It further recorded: "The High Court ought to have invoked its inherent jurisdiction in the case of the appellant as well as it did while quashing the proceedings for the remaining accused."

The Bench concluded that all pending interlocutory applications, if any, were to be disposed of. The final sentence in the signed order read: "Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunando Raha, Advocate; Mr. Sk Sayan Uddin, Advocate; Mr. Kunal Malik, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Akash Singh Rana, Advocate; Ms. Anna Oommen, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, Advocate; Mr. Mrinal Prajapati, Advocate (for State); Mr. Smarhar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Bikram Mandal, Advocate (for complainant)

Case Title: XXX v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ________ of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7004 of 2025]

Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Aravind Kumar