IMPORTANT POINT
Consensual nature of the relationship, societal acceptance, and the need for legislative amendments to the POCSO Act in cases involving adolescents in relationships.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners who has submitted that on 05.08.2019, the respondent No.2 as the informant has filed an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge Laitumkhrah P.S, Shillong with a missing person's complaint that her minor daughter aged about 15 years was missing from home since 04.08.2019 from 9:00 am. The prime suspect in the matter is the petitioner No.1 herein, since on an earlier occasion i.e. 16.06.2019, the said suspect had taken her said minor daughter/petitioner No.2 to his residence at Laitkor and it is only when the respondent No.2 went to pick her up on the same day that she was able to bring her home.

2. On receipt of the said FIR, the police registered a criminal case being Laitumkhrah PS Case No. 134(8)2019 under Section 365 IPC, accordingly, on 05.08.2019 the petitioner was arrested in connection with the said case. In due course he was subsequently enlarged on bail, however, the investigation proceeded.

3. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final form/final report under Section 173 Cr.PC and has also given his opinion that in view of the investigation conducted, a prima facie case under Section 365 IPC read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012 is found well established against the accused person/petitioner No.1 and he is sent to face trial before the competent court. The matter was then taken up by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong in Special (POCSO) Case No. 10 of 2020. It is also submitted that charges have been framed against the petitioner No.1 herein and the matter is pending for recording of evidence of the prosecution's witnesses.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the fact of the matter is that the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 are in a relationship as boyfriend and girlfriend at that relevant point of time and it is also admitted that the petitioner No.2 had come to the residence of petitioner No.1 on 04.08.2019, but since petitioner No.1 was not at home, she had waited for him and in the process when the petitioner No. 1 returned home he found the petitioner No.2 waiting for him, it was about 10:30 pm by then. The petitioner No.1 however had informed the father of the petitioner No.2 intimating him about his daughter's whereabouts and soon after that he proceeded to drop the petitioner No. 2 at her residence at Malki on a scooter. On reaching near her residence, the petitioner No.2 saw her parents waiting for her outside her house and in a state of panic as soon as she got off the scooter, she did not enter the house and ran away from the scene.

5. The petitioner No.1 had in the meantime returned home and only came to know later that the petitioner No.2 after getting off near her residence had proceeded on foot towards the petitioner No.1's residence at Laitkor and reached there at around 3:00 am where she spends the night at the petitioner No.1's residence.

6. It is further submitted that it is not a case of kidnapping or abduction but that the petitioner No.2 on her own had left her house and had come to the residence of the petitioner No.1. Infact, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC, the petitioner No.2 had clearly stated that she had gone to the house of petitioner No.1 on her own since they are in a relationship as boyfriend and girlfriend and on coming to know that the informant who is her mother had lodged the FIR and on her father informing the same to the petitioner No.1 over the phone, she along with petitioner No.1 went to the police station on their own. However, from the police station they were taken separately for medical examination and soon after that she lost touch with the petitioner No.1 and she herself was placed in a hostel at Mawlai. She came to know that petitioner No.1 was sent to jail.

7. The learned counsel has again submitted that the petitioner No.2 in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC has clearly stated that she is in her relationship with the