The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday [July 15] stayed the proceedings in a POCSO case against a 19-year-old student, prima facie observing that he cannot be tried as an adult for sexual offences allegedly committed when he was 17-years-old.

A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna was hearing a petition filed by the accused, seeking quashing of proceedings in Crime No. 41/2026 of Konanakunte Police Station pending before the Fast Track Special Court, Bengaluru.

“…. Learned Counsel Angad Kamath appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence as it is the case that the petitioner at the age of 17 being in a relationship with a girl who was 15, therefore the offence of POCSO has sprung. Notwithstanding the offence of POCSO…In the light of the petitioner being tried before the POCSO court and not as a juvenile, given that he was still a juvenile at the time of commission of offence, there shall be an interim order of stay of further proceedings qua the petitioner till the next date of hearing. List on 31st July”, the court noted in the order

The student had sought quashing of the charge sheet dated March 23 for offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1), and 351(2) BNS and Sections 4(2), 5(i), and 6 of POCSO Act.

When the matter was taken up, the petitioner's counsel advocate Angad Kamath, submitted that the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the alleged commission of the offence and that charges were scheduled to be framed tomorrow before the Special Court.

“…Boy aged 17, girl aged 15…they meet on a App…they are in a relationship for 2 years….4000 calls exchanged…more than 10 lakh seconds of talking…it's there in the Call Data Records. The father finds out…,” Kamath said.

“How will we stay it?”, the judge orally asked. To which Kamath said that case falls within the 'Romeo-Juliet' principle, citing the High Court's judgment in Aarush Jain vs State Of Karnataka (2022), where it was held that acts arising from the 'frenzy of youth and biological curiosities' should be viewed differently.

Significantly the Supreme Court in January 2026, suggested that the Union Government could consider introducing a “Romeo-Juliet” clause in the POCSO Act to exempt adolescents who engage in consensual relationships from criminal prosecution, despite being below the age of consent and having only a minor age difference.

It was also argued that petitioner student, who was 17 years old at the time of the alleged incidents, was being tried as an adult before the POCSO court without the mandatory preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

“…Tomorrow charges are being framed, a minor who is 17 as admitted on the date of offence, he can't be tried as an adult without the Section 15 preliminary assessment before the Juvenile Justice Board…”, Kamath submitted.

Observing that the same cannot be done, the passed the order staying the proceedings.

For context, Section 15 Assessment is an evaluation conducted by the Board to evaluate the minor's mental or physical capacity to commit the crime and ability to understand its consequences.

The Court has directed the HCGP to accept notice for the respondent and go through the papers to make submissions.

Background

According to the plea, the petitioner was a Class XII student residing at his maternal uncle's house in Bengaluru. It alleges that the girl spoke to the petitioner through Instagram in 2024, initiating contact. The Call Detail Records collected during investigation disclose that 4,063 calls were exchanged between the petitioner and the girl, with the first recorded call on December 15, 2024, and the last on January 13, 2026.

The first alleged incident is stated to have taken place on March 8, 2025, when the petitioner was aged 17 years. The prosecutrix was aged 15 years then. The petitioner attained majority only on March 29, 2025.

On the other hand, the prosecution alleged that repeated acts of penetrative sexual assault occurred in 2025.

To the contrary, the petition contends that the prosecution material itself depicts a prolonged adolescent relationship between two young persons of proximate age rather than circumstances indicating predatory sexual exploitation.

The petition's primary ground is that the entire prosecution before the Special Court is without jurisdiction insofar as the allegations relating to the period between March 8, 2025, and March 14, 2025, are concerned, when the petitioner was admittedly a minor.

Section 34 of the POCSO Act expressly mandates that where an offence under the Act is alleged to have been committed by a child, such child shall be dealt with only in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the plea states.

Case Title: X v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No.: CRL.P 9537/2026