IMPORTANT POINT
Allegations of sexual offences raised after significant delay post-marriage were found unsustainable, indicating potential misuse of the PoCSO Act.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed by the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.714/2020 of Kaduthuruthy Police Station, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the following prayers:

“i. Call for the records, hear the parties and quash Annexure A9 Final Report, invoking inherent powers of this Hon’ble Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

ii. Grant such other relief that may be proper and necessary in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records, placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, form part of the prosecution and other documents.

3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 354D, 450 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Section 6 r/w 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PoCSO Act’). The allegation is that the defacto complainant and the accused, who legally effected marriage as on 19.06.2017, maintained love relationship since 2015 onwards while the defacto complainant was a minor, aged below 18 years. Further allegation is that while maintaining the relationship during the juvenility of the defacto complainant, the petitioner herein subjected her to sexual intercourse at 11.30 hours on 08.03.2015 when she was aged 16 years and 11 months and thereafter repeated the same on 09.03.2015 and 11.03.2015 at 12 midnight. The prosecution case further is that during the month of October, 2016, and thereafter during the month of June, 2017 also, she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused after she attained majority. This is the base on which the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences.

4. While seeking quashment of the crime, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire allegations are false and foisted. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no relationship in between the petitioner and the defacto complainant before February, 2016, and there was no sexual intercourse before the marriage as alleged. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after having solemnized the marriage on 19.06.2017, while living together as husband and wife, there were differences of opinion between the defacto complainant and the petitioner and ultimately, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint on 24.06.2020 before the Station House Officer as Annexure-A5 and in the said complaint, no allegation of sexual molestation, during the juvenility of the defacto complainant was stated, as put forth now, and denial of maintenance was the allegation therein. As per Annexure A7, the police disposed of the complaint, directing the parties to approach the Family Court and seek remedies. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the defacto complainant, in order to wreak vengeance, by misusing the provisions of PoCSO Act levelled allegations of sexual molestation during the period of her juvenility, that too, after three years and one month after the marriage, on 06.07.2020, without any basis. Accordingly, it is submitted that this is a case, wherein false and fraudulent allegations are made, warranting quashment of the same.

5. Opposing quashment, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would submit that the allegations are true and offences are prima facie made out. Therefore, trial is necessary. When the learned counsel for the defacto complainant is asked to justify the delay in lodging the FIR even after solemnization of marriage for a period of three years, the learned counsel failed to offer either a sufficient explanation or even a remotely sufficient explanation in any manner.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the marriage between the defacto complainant and