Victims of minor consent cases married post-incident may not face trial if quashing serves justice.

ORAL ORDER

1. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the victim, who was just under 18 years of age at the relevant time, is stated to have voluntarily eloped with the petitioner and subsequently entered into marriage upon attaining majority.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC ”) and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “the POCSO Act”) are not attracted in the present case, considering the consensual nature of the relationship and subsequent developments.

3. In support of his submission, learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 614, and submitted that in an identical factual scenario, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that although the trial court lacks jurisdiction to record a settlement in such offences, it would nevertheless be appropriate for the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that in the present case, the victim was 17 years and 10 months old on the date of the alleged incident. A copy of the marriage certificate has been placed on record, and the affidavit of the victim affirms that she married the petitioner after attaining the age of majority. This, according to learned counsel, clearly indicates that there is no justification for subjecting the petitioner to face the rigours of trial.

5. Under instructions, learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that the couple are now blessed with a child/children. He further stated that the couple is leading a harmonious and stable married life. In light of these developments, it is submitted that the present petition may be allowed in the interest of justice.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the FIR. It was submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR pertain to offences under the POCSO Act, which constitute a crime not merely against the individual, but against the society at large. Therefore, even if the victim was close to the age of majority at the relevant time and subsequently entered into a consensual marriage with the petitioner, the Court may be circumspect in exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR, given the gravity and nature of the offence alleged.

7. Having heard the learned advocates for both sides and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel (supra). The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow:-

“6. Our attention is invited to the affidavit filed by the third respondent in which she has accepted the fact that she is happily married to the appellant and they have been residing together. She has disclosed her date of birth as 20th July, 1998. In the record of the Primary School, as can be seen from document at Annexure ‘P-1’, the date of birth of the third respondent is shown as 20th July, 1998. Ossification test was conducted during the investigation. The report of the test is that on the date of commission of the offence, the age of the third respondent may be between 17½ years to 19 years. There are documents on record to show that th