IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that sexual contact between an adult and a minor, even with the minor's consent, can constitute penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. D.K. Warjri, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred to invoke the inherent power of this Court for quashing of an FIR dated 19.01.2021 filed by one S.I J. Nonglang of Pynursla P.S before the Officer-In-Charge, Pynursla Police Station, East Khasi Hills District, to the effect that information was received from the In-charge Mawdiangdiang Police Outpost, that a report has been received from NEIGRIHMS Hospital, Shillong that one minor girl of about 17 years of age, a resident of Pongtung village, Pynursla was brought to the hospital for medical treatment and child labour. On enquiry, it was learned that the said minor girl was married to the petitioner herein and the couple have been living under the same roof with their parents since the month of March, 2020. On 16.01.2021, the said minor girl gave birth to a baby boy and at the relevant time was still under medical treatment in the said hospital. Noting that the parents are not willing to file any complaint, the informant has accordingly requested that appropriate action may be taken in this regard.

2. On receipt of the said FIR, Pynursla P.S Case No. 02(1)2021 u/s 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was registered against the petitioner herein and on the Investigating Officer finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, eventually the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong took cognizance of the case and the petitioner was accordingly made to stand trial in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 15 of 2021 u/s 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The case is at the stage of consideration of charge.

3. Mr. Warjri has submitted that the petitioner is a villager earning his livelihood through daily wage labour and he had cohabited with the said alleged victim as per Khasi customs since the month of March, 2020 and is living together with his wife and family members in the same roof in a happy conjugal relationship where after, a baby boy was born to them on 16.01.2021.

4. Mr. Warjri has further submitted that the petitioner and his wife as well as the family member were overjoyed when they were blessed with a child, but their joy turned to sadness when it is learned that the said FIR was filed against the petitioner at the behest of the hospital authorities and that the petitioner was charged under the POCSO Act which is unknown to him.

5. On reading of Section 5(j)(ii) together with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Mr. Warjri submits that the contents pertain to sexual assault which is far from the facts of the case as the element of sexual assault is absent.

6. It is also pertinent to mention that none of the family members of the girl had any intention to file an FIR against the petitioner and to this effect, even the alleged victim in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C has stated that she has no intention to file any complaint against the petitioner who is her husband as he is taking good care of her and their child and also being the sole bread owner of the family, they are completely dependent on the petitioner.

7. Again, Mr. Warjri has submitted that the intention of the legislature in enacting the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) is not to undermine the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore prosecuting or punishing a man who is in a romantic relationship with a minor girl and to treat him as an offender was never the objective of the POCSO Act since the goal of the Act is to punish the perpetrators so that peace and tranquility is maintained in society, but it is never the objective of the Act to create this harmony in a happy family union. It is therefore prayed that the said FIR and related proceedings may be set aside and quashed.

8. In support of his case, the learned counsel has cited the following:

(i) Parbathbhai Aahir alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors v. State of Gujarat and A