Click the Play button to listen to article

The Uttarakhand High Court has observed that “treating the consensual relationship between a 17 years old and 21 years old on par with sexual assault collapses meaningful distinctions and results in manifest arbitrariness under Article 14,” thus holding that “child protection does not require criminalising adolescence.”

Hence, taking into consideration the victim's age, her statement that there was no force, coercion or misrepresentation in the relationship, and the fact that the parties had been in a love relationship for more than a year and had subsequently settled the dispute, the Court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause the accused “great oppression, prejudice and injustice” and would “tantamount to abuse of process of law.” The Court accordingly quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 

Justice Alok Mahra was hearing a writ petition seeking quashing of FIR registered at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. The FIR was initially lodged under Section 140(3) BNS, but during investigation, Sections 137(2), 84 and 64(2)(m) BNS and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act were also added.

Furthermore, during the pendency of the writ petition, a fresh compounding application, jointly signed by counsel for the petitioner and respondent and supported by affidavits of the parties, was placed before the Court. 

Importantly, at the time of the incident, the victim was 17 years and 2 months old, while the petitioner was aged about 22 years. It was submitted that the petitioner and the victim were in a love relationship and that, since the victim had left her parental house without informing her parents, the FIR was lodged under some misconception. Counsels for the parties submitted that they had entered into a settlement and, therefore, the matter needed to be compounded to ensure that peace was restored.

The victim was present before the Court and stated that she and the petitioner proposed to get married as soon as she attained the age of majority. Furthermore, the Court took into consideration the victim's age at the time of the incident, her statement that she and the petitioner had been in a love relationship for more than one year, and the fact that the complainant as well as the victim did not want to prosecute the petitioner any further. The Court also noted that the FIR had been lodged under some misconception and observed that “it is a case of love of two adults in which their future is also involved.”

In these circumstances, the Court was of the view that “continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice and injustice. Rather, it would tantamount to abuse of process of law. Ends of justice would be met if criminal proceedings are put to an end, because this would allow the parties to translate their decision to live in peace in the reality.

The Court further observed that resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court, which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to the lawful composition of society or would promote savagery. Both parties thereafter made statements that, in view of the settlement, they wanted to close the matter. 

Thus, taking into consideration the facts of the case, the Court held that:

“In view of the admitted fact that both the victim and the petitioner are in love relation and the age of the victim is more than 17 years, as such, she is mature enough to understand the consequences of her acts and deeds. The victim herself has admitted that there was no force, coercion or misrepresentation in their relationship.

Treating the consensual relationship between a 17 years old and 21 years old on par with sexual assault collapses meaningful distinctions and results in manifest arbitrariness under Article 14. Child protection does not require criminalising adolescence. Taking into consideration the relevant factors and also taking into account the facts of this case, request of the petitioner deserves to be acceded to”.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR along with all proceedings emanating therefrom. Since the petitioner was in judicial custody, the Court directed that he be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

The compounding application was consequently disposed of. 

Case: Aman Sagar Versus State Of Uttarakhand [WPCRL/1543/2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order




Tags: