The consent of a minor is of no consequence for the purpose of sexual relationship, and the allegations of sexual assault are not affected by subsequent events such as marriage.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking quashing of FIR bearing No. 162/2021, registered at Police Station Daryaganj, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 363/366A/376/505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (`POCSO Act').

2. The brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on 29.05.2021 on the statement of victim `A', daughter of `N', resident of `W', aged about 17 years. As per statement of the victim, she used to live with her mother at Daryaganj and had shifted to Wazirabad about two months prior to 29.05.2021. While she was residing at Daryaganj, she used to go to attend tuitions at Chhatta Lal Mian where she had met accused Mohd. Amaan Malik a resident of Daryaganj, Delhi who was aged about 20 years. At the tuition centre, they had developed friendship and had started communicating with each other on mobile phone. The victim had further alleged in the complaint that in the month of March, the accused had called her at Sabzi Mandi and had taken her to a guest house at Sarai Kale Khan in his car. Thereafter, he had given her alcoholic substance and had made physical relations with her without her consent. The victim further alleged that thereafter, the accused had started blackmailing her that he will post her inappropriate photographs on the social media, and under this threat, he had taken her to the guest house at Sarai Kale Khan several times and had forcibly made physical relations with her. On 07.04.2021, she had realized that she was pregnant and had informed her mother about the same and her mother had called the accused on phone and had informed about the pregnancy. Thereafter, accused Amaan had visited her house and had threatened the victim and her mother. On 09.04.2021, he had married the victim by threatening her mother at Turkman Gate and thereafter, he had taken the victim and her mother to sign documents for marriage ceremony. Thereafter, he had started residing on rented accommodation with the victim at Wazirabad near house of her mother. After two days, he had gone missing and whenever he used to come at rented accommodation, he used to beat and molest the victim and also used to extend threats and pressurize her for abortion. When she had asked the accused to take her to her matrimonial home, he had told that he had performed the marriage only in order to get rid of her. During the course of investigation, the victim was got medically examined at LHMC Hospital and her pregnancy report was found positive. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where she had corroborated her statement. During further investigation, her pregnancy was terminated at LHMC Hospital and the fetus was preserved. The accused was arrested on 29.05.2021. Blood samples of the accused and the fetus of the victim and blood samples of the victim were obtained and sent for DNA examination. As per DNA examination, the biological father of the fetus was found to be the accused/petitioner. During the course of investigation, the proof of marriage of victim was obtained. As per her school records, her date of birth was found to be 12.05.2004 and therefore, she was 17 years of age at the time of solemnizing of her marriage with the accused. Further, the entries from the Sagar Palace guest house were obtained. During investigation, the factum of marriage of the victim and accused was verified but Qazi Abul Khalid who had performed the marriage of the victim had expired. After conclusion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the documentary evidence in this case is contradictory to the allegations leveled by the victim. It is stated that the documentary evidence in this case falsifies the statement of victim herself and therefore, it is