IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of sexual assault, consent, and the implications of marriage under the IPC and the POCSO Act, particularly in the context of consensual relationships and the maturity of the individuals involved.

JUDGMENT

1. An FIR dated 15.02.2020 was filed by the petitioner No. 3 before the Officer-in-Charge, Lumdiengjri Police Station reporting that his daughter aged about 16 years was missing since the previous day but was however brought back the next day by the petitioner No. 1 herein. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 1 is the perpetrator who had abducted the minor daughter of the complainant and who has also raped her in the process.

2. Investigation was accordingly launched and the statement of the relevant witnesses including the alleged victim was recorded, both under Section 161 as well as under Section 164 Cr.PC.

3. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer (I/O) has filed the chargesheet indicating that a prima facie case under Section 363 IPC read with Section 3(a)/4/9(n)/10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 is found well established against the petitioner No. 1 herein. Interestingly, on the basis of the statement of the alleged victim where she has made certain allegations against the petitioner No. 3 herein who is also her father as well as the complainant in the case, the I/O has also impleaded him as an accused in the case, finding that a case under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act is found well established against the father.

4. The case was then taken up by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong registered as Special POCSO Case No. 52 of 2020. On consideration of charge, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong has framed charges against the petitioner No. 1 under Section 375(a)/375 sixthly/376(2)(n) IPC read with Section 3(a)/5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner No. 3 has also been made co-accused in the case and charges under Section 354/354A(i) IPC read with Section 7/9(n)/10 of the POCSO Act were framed. The stage of the case is for recording of the prosecution witnesses' statement.

5. Mr. S. Marpan, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the principal character in this case is the petitioner No. 2, the alleged victim and the fate of the case would hinge on her testimony. However, from her statement made before the police under Section 161 Cr.PC as also the one made before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.PC would exhibit the same trend, that is, the consistent assertion by the alleged victim that she is in a love relationship with the petitioner No. 1 and as such, there is no question of force or assault involved as far as their sexual relationship is concerned. The same being consensual and voluntary, at the end of the day, the prosecution may not be able to prove the case to convict the accused/petitioner No. 1.

6. As far as the allegations made against the petitioner No. 3 is concerned, the petitioner No. 2 has submitted that she no longer wishes to pursue the matter keeping in mind the close relational proximity of the parties and as such, by this instant petition it is prayed that the prosecution against the petitioner No. 3 may also be quashed.

7. It is finally submitted that this application under Section 482 Cr.PC may be allowed and the proceedings in Special POCSO Case No. 52 of 2020 may be set aside and quashed.

8. Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA appearing for the State respondent has submitted that though the alleged victim girl/petitioner No. 2 has stated that she is now married to the accused/petitioner No. 1, the fact remains that at the time of commission of the alleged offence the petitioner No. 2 was about 16 years old and as such was a minor and therefore, even though she may have got married after attaining the marriageable age, the acts of the petitioner No. 1 cannot be condoned in accordance with law. This petition is therefore devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the petition as well as the case record produced before this Court have been perused.

10. What can be understood from the submission made as well as from the materials on record, the initial co