Back
Paragji Detroja gets relief as quashes POCSO FIR in love affair case
In a significant ruling, the has quashed a 2017 FIR registered against Paragji Bharatji Detroja under Sections 363 and 366 of the and , observing that the case was one of "adolescent love" where the girl had her parental home without any threat, coercion, or allurement.
Justice P. M. Raval, presiding over the single-judge bench, allowed the criminal miscellaneous application filed by Detroja, setting aside the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
The Love Affair and the FIR
The complainant, the father of the girl, had lodged the FIR on , at , Anand. He alleged that his daughter, born on , had gone to college on but did not return home. Upon inquiry, he found that Detroja was also missing from his residence, and his daughter's certificates were gone.
However, the petitioner's counsel, , argued that Detroja and the girl were in a love affair and that she had voluntarily accompanied him. The couple got married on , after the girl attained the age of majority. At the time of the alleged incident, she was 17 years and 10 months old.
Arguments: Voluntarily Leaving vs.
The petitioner contended that the girl had left her father's house of her "" due to pressure from her father to marry another person. An affidavit from the girl was placed on record, supporting Detroja and stating that she had home and later married him after turning 18.
The prosecution, represented by , argued that since the investigation was stayed, no further inquiry was conducted. The prosecution maintained that the FIR and the girl's age made out a case under the invoked sections.
Court's Legal Analysis: No Ingredients of or POCSO
The High Court examined the FIR and the girl's affidavit, and relied on the 's decision in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (AIR 1965 SC 942). The court noted that the girl had her parental home without any inducement from the accused.
The judgment stated:
"This is a case of
, wherein the victim herself
the house of the parents (complainant father) without there being any threat, coercion or allurement and also considering the fact that the victim had a love affair with the present petitioner and, as per the affidavit, the father of the victim was pressuring her to get married to some other person, she left the house of the father voluntarily. Under such circumstances, no case under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and Section 18 of the POCSO Act is made out."
The court emphasized that the —taking away a minor from lawful guardianship without consent—were absent. Since the girl acted on her own , the allegations of coercion or allurement were not substantiated.
Key Observations
The court made the following pivotal observations:
-
"This is a case of , wherein the victim herself the house of the parents."
-
The girl left
"without there being any threat, coercion or allurement."
- The father was pressuring her to marry someone else, prompting her to leave voluntarily.
- The girl's affidavit clearly stated she had a love affair with the petitioner and married him after attaining majority.
The Decision: FIR Quashed
Allowing the petition, Justice Raval quashed FIR No. I/91/2017 registered with , Anand, along with all consequential proceedings against Detroja. The to that extent.
The ruling reinforces the principle that when a minor girl voluntarily leaves her home in a , without any inducement from the accused, the offence of is not made out. The court's reliance on the 's precedent in S. Varadarajan provides clarity on the distinction between and .
