Back
Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Charges in Marriage-Related Dispute Citing Majority of Victim
In a significant order delivered on , the intervened to initiated under the . The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, ruled that continuing a prosecution in a case where the "victim" was a major at the time of the incident, and who is now happily married to the accused, serves no legal purpose and only causes undue harassment to the families involved.
Background of the Case The case stems from an FIR registered on , alleging offences under , alongside . The complainant alleged that the victim, then 17, had been subjected to offences by the appellant, Mahesh Mukund Patel.
However, the reality of the situation surfaced during the judicial proceedings. Marriage records verified by the authorities confirmed that the appellant and the victim were married on , and have since become parents to two children. Both the marriage certificate and primary school records consistently indicated the victim's date of birth as —a fact that placed her at the when the alleged incident occurred.
Judicial Reasoning and Oversight The Supreme Court expressed sharp disapproval of the ’s handling of the matter. Although the High Court had the marriage certificate and evidence of the parties '' status before it, it instructed the parties to approach the to drop the proceedings.
The Supreme Court bench clarified that the
lacked the
to simply record a settlement in such matters.
"The High Court completely lost sight of the fact that the
could not have recorded the settlement and in fact, this was a fit case for the High Court to have exercised its
under
by quashing the proceedings,"
the bench observed.
Key Observations The judgment serves as a reminder of the need for courts to look beyond technical allegations when the demonstrates an . The following observations were pivotal to the court's decision:
-
On the victim's testimony:
"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."
-
On the purpose of litigation:
"Now that the appellant and third respondent are happily married, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution as it will cause undue harassment to the appellant, the third respondent and their children."
-
On the :
"Unnecessarily, the parties have been forced to come to this Court."
Broader Legal Implications This ruling aligns with a developing trend in the Indian judiciary where courts are increasingly prioritizing the preservation of marital stability and the prevention of unnecessary harassment in cases where allegations do not align with verified factual age records.
Similarly, this trend of was reflected in recent outcomes from the , where a POCSO conviction was set aside due to a lack of evidence and a by the complainant, illustrating that even in serious criminal matters, the court maintains a high threshold for evidence and continues to scrutinize the viability of ongoing prosecutions in the interest of justice.
Final Disposition Finding that the victim was a major at the time of the incident and that the criminal prosecution was effectively redundant, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The FIR (No. 567 of 2016) and the subsequent Sessions Trial (No. 1332 of 2021) pending before the Special Judge, , Varanasi, have been formally quashed.
