Love, Marriage, and Child Can't Nullify POCSO Offences, Bombay HC Rules

In a significant ruling that reinforces the stringent nature of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Bombay High Court has held that an FIR under the Act cannot be quashed merely because the minor victim and the adult accused have fallen in love, married with family consent, and had a child together.

A division bench of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nandesh Deshpande, in an 18-page order dated September 26, firmly rejected a petition to quash criminal proceedings against a 29-year-old man and his parents. The ruling underscores the legal principle that a minor's consent is immaterial in sexual offence cases and that subsequent social validation, such as marriage, does not erase the commission of a statutory offence.

The case, MABRB vs State of Maharashtra , provides a critical judicial perspective on the intersection of consensual relationships involving minors, personal laws, and the overarching mandate of child protection legislation.

---

Case Background: A "Love Story" Meets the Law

The petition was filed by a 29-year-old man and his parents, seeking to quash an FIR that charged them under the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The facts presented to the court indicated that the man and the minor girl had fallen in love. Their relationship subsequently received the approval of both their families, culminating in a marriage ceremony conducted according to Muslim rites on June 2, 2024. Following the marriage, the couple had a child.

The petitioners argued that since the relationship was consensual, the families had accepted the union, and a child had been born, the criminal proceedings should be terminated to allow the new family to live in peace. They sought the exercise of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash the FIR, presenting their situation as an "exceptional circumstance."

The Court's Unwavering Stance on Statutory Mandates

The High Court meticulously dismantled the petitioners' arguments, focusing on the non-negotiable legal thresholds established by the POCSO Act. The bench noted that the girl's age was the central, unassailable fact of the case.

"Though she states that the said marriage was as per the Muslim rites and religion, but at the time of marriage, she was below 18 years of age. When she delivered the child at the relevant time also, she was below 18 years of age," the judges observed.

The court placed responsibility squarely on the adult accused, who was approximately 27 at the time of the marriage. The bench opined that his age and maturity should have guided his actions.

"At least, he ought to have understood that he should wait till the girl attains 18 years of age. Then in spite of having knowledge that the girl is minor, when he takes her away from the legal custody of her parents, from that point itself he commits the offence. Merely because now the girl has given birth to the child, we are of the opinion that the acts of the applicants cannot be brushed aside," the bench held.

This observation is crucial as it reiterates that the offence is committed at the very moment the act prohibited by law occurs, and subsequent events like childbirth do not retroactively cleanse the initial illegality.

Wider Legal Context: The National Debate on Age of Consent

In its detailed analysis, the Bombay High Court did not confine its reasoning to the facts of the case alone. It strategically contextualized its decision within the ongoing national discourse on the age of consent, referencing the Supreme Court's suo motu public interest litigation in Right to Privacy of Adolescents, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2023 .

The bench highlighted the Central Government's affidavit in the said case, where the Union expressed strong reluctance to lower the age of consent. The government's position, as noted by the High Court, is that reducing the age would undermine the very purpose for which the POCSO Act was enacted—to protect children from sexual exploitation.

By aligning its decision with the stand of the executive before the Apex Court, the Bombay High Court sent a powerful message about judicial and legislative congruence on this sensitive issue. The bench observed:

"As the consent of the minor is irrelevant and the stand taken by the Central Government before the Apex Court also shows that it would be against the mandate of the Constitution of India, as law is not for the individuals but for society at large. If a relief provided under statute could be obtained only by following a certain procedure made therein for that purpose, that procedure must be followed, if he is to obtain that relief. Justice has got to be done according to law."

This statement emphasizes a fundamental tenet of jurisprudence: the law serves the collective societal interest, not just the desires of individual parties, and statutory procedures must be strictly adhered to.

Implications for Legal Practice and Section 482 CrPC

The court’s refusal to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC is particularly instructive for legal practitioners. While this section grants High Courts the inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice, the bench made it clear that such power is to be used sparingly, especially in cases involving grave offences against society like those under POCSO.

"We, therefore, do not find this to be a fit case, where we should exercise our powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by making the case as of exceptional circumstance," the court concluded.

This decision serves as a stern precedent, cautioning against attempts to frame "consensual" relationships involving minors as grounds for quashing FIRs. It signals to lower courts and law enforcement that the social and emotional aspects of such relationships, including family consent and subsequent marriage, are legally subservient to the strict liability framework of the POCSO Act. For defence counsels, this ruling narrows the scope for arguments based on compromise or post-facto regularization of the relationship, reinforcing that the primary focus remains the victim's age at the time of the offence. For prosecutors, it strengthens their hand in pursuing such cases, backed by clear and unequivocal judicial reasoning.

Ultimately, the Bombay High Court's judgment is a resolute affirmation that the protective shield of the POCSO Act cannot be pierced by appeals to emotion, personal laws, or subsequent life events. It establishes that while love, marriage, and parenthood are significant social institutions, they do not grant a license to bypass the fundamental legal protections afforded to children.