IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need to consider the practical aspects and implications of the POCSO Act in cases involving consensual relationships or marriages between minors, and the importance of assessing the maturity level of the individuals involved and the nature of their relationship.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C preferred with a prayer before this Court to invoke its inherent power to set aside and quash the FIR dated 14.05.2021 filed before the Officer-in-Charge, Pynursla Police Station, East Khasi Hills District and duly registered as Pynursla P.S. Case No 30(5) of 2021 under Section 5 (j) (ii) (q)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and which case after filing of the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer, was taken up by the learned Special Judge, (POCSO), Shillong in Special POCSO Case No. 63 of 2021.

2. In the said FIR lodged by the respondent No. 2 herein, the complaint stated that her daughter who is about 17 years and 7 months had an affair with the petitioner herein since the year 2020 and with the consent of the family, they got married and stayed together as husband and wife. However, on 13.05.2021, the police of Pynursla Police Station came to her house and advised her to lodge an FIR against the petitioner herein on the basis of the information received from the Pynursla CHC that her minor daughter was tested to be pregnant from an underage marriage which is against the law and being so compelled, the respondent No. 2 lodged the said FIR against her wishes.

3. Following the usual formalities, the police registered a criminal case being Pynursla P.S. Case No. 30(5) of 2021 under Section 5 (j) (ii) (q)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and as stated above, on completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet, the case was then taken up by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong being Special POCSO Case No. 63 of 2021.

4. Heard Ms. R. Kharshiing learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Sengupta learned Addl. PP for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. A.M. Sangma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

5. The case of the petitioner No. 1 is that he has a relationship with the petitioner No. 2/daughter of the Informant/respondent No. 2 since 01.12.2020 and out of this relationship, a bond is created resulting in his union with her as husband and wife. This relationship was also approved by the family members of both the family. His wife on being pregnant, had visited the local CHC at Pynursla and on being confirmed that she is pregnant, the hospital authority informed the police about the matter. This led to the police to visit the house of the minor girl and on being persuaded, the respondent No. 2 had filed the said FIR (supra) against her will.

6. It was also the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioners being ignorant of the law in this regard had cohabited together as husband and wife and are happily living a complete family life with the petitioner No. 1 being the bread earner of the family and if the case against him proceeds further, great hardship will be faced by the family.

7. The statement of the petitioner No. 2 made under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, respectively was also referred to by the learned counsel to say that here too, the petitioner No. 2 has categorically stated that she is now staying with the petitioner No. 1 as husband and wife in her mother's house with the consent of the families of both sides.

8. In the light of such a situation, it is submitted that proceeding with the case against the petitioner No. 1 would be futile, and ends of justice would not be met considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

9. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the case of Vijayalakshmi & Anr. v. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Erode: Crl. O.P No. 232 of 2021, para 11 & 18 and in the case of Ranjit Rajbanshi v. State of West Bengal & Ors: C.R.A. No 458 of 2018, Calcutta High Court, at para 47, 48 & 49 as well as the case of Shri. Teiborlang Kurkalang & Anr v. State of Meghalaya & Anr in Crl. Petn. No 62 of 2021 wherein this Court in similar circumstances has allowed the prayer of the petitioner therein and has quashed the criminal proceedings of the relevant case before th