Minor’s Consent Irrelevant Under POCSO: Bombay High Court Refuses to Quash FIR in Child Marriage Case - 2026-06-02

Law Over Love: Bombay High Court Rejects Quashing of FIR in Underage Marriage Case

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court at Nagpur has reaffirmed the stringent legal safeguards surrounding the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The bench, comprising Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande, dismissed a plea to quash an FIR involving a marriage between an adult man and an underage girl, cementing the principle that the consent of a minor carries no weight in the eyes of the law.

The Backdrop: A Plea for "Adolescent Love"

The case originated from a report filed by a police constable after a minor girl, aged 17, delivered a baby at a nursing home in Akola. The FIR alleged that the girl had been subjected to sexual assault while underage and forced into a child marriage.

The applicants—the 29-year-old husband and his parents—sought to have the criminal proceedings quashed. Their counsel argued that the relationship was a consensual "adolescent love affair" and that the pair had eventually married according to religious rites. They contended that criminalizing the relationship would only harm the girl and her child, who now faced social and domestic instability if the applicant were convicted.

Arguments from the Bar

The applicants’ defense heavily relied on the "subsequent events" doctrine, arguing that the couple had already started a life together and that the victim had filed no objection to the proceedings. They invoked recent judicial discourse regarding the potential decriminalization of adolescent relationships.

Conversely, the State strongly opposed the application. The public prosecutor argued that the victim was clearly under the age of 18 at the time of the physical relationship and the marriage. The State maintained that the welfare of the child and the protective mandate of the POCSO Act supersede private arrangements. Furthermore, the Union of India ’s stance, currently before the Supreme Court , asserts that lower sensitivity to minor consent laws would undermine the very protections needed against sexual exploitation.

The Judicial Rationale

The Court’s analysis centered on the legislative intent of the POCSO Act. The Bench noted that the law treats minors as a distinct class to prevent exploitation, making factual consent in such relationships legally immaterial.

The Court held that, notwithstanding the current debates regarding how the law handles adolescent relationships, the law as it stands today remains absolute. Citing the Supreme Court ’s observation in Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala , the Bench reiterated that a minor’s consent is not a valid defense to charges of kidnapping or sexual exploitation under the current legal framework.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the limitations of judicial intervention when faced with explicit statutory mandates:

• "Under the said Act, factual consent in a relationship between minors is immaterial."
• "The State possesses a legitimate constitutional and legal interest in prescribing and maintaining minimum age of consent, in furtherance of its obligation to protect children for exploitation."
• "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 he is to obtain that relief."
• "Law is not tailor made for individuals but for society at large and hence, till the time the mischief remains, the relevance of the law remains."

The Verdict and Its Impact

By dismissing the application to quash, the Bombay High Court has sent a clear message: personal circumstances, such as pregnancy or marital status, do not act as an automatic shield against the provisions of the POCSO Act when the victim is a minor. The Court signaled that pending deliberations by the Supreme Court on the nuances of "adolescent love" do not grant high courts the license to bypass existing legislation.

For legal professionals, this decision reinforces that while constitutional courts hold vast powers under Section 482 of the CrPC , those powers are not to be used to validate social practices that violate child protection statutes. The case moves toward trial, with the state now expected to fulfill its role as the guardian of the victim and her child.