"Injustice To Divide A Well-Knitted Family": Meghalaya HC Quashes POCSO Charges Against Man Accused Of Having 'Consensual Sex' With Minor Wife

The Meghalaya High Court, on Wednesday, quashed and set aside charges levelled against a man under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act') for allegedly having 'consensual sex' with his minor wife. A Single Judge Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh took note of the peculiar circumstances of the case and observed, "…in the event it is apparent that a young couple are in a relationship where love is the deciding factor even to the extent that it has culminated into a marriage relationship, it may be the case that in such a relationship even if the girl involved is legally a minor, if she has the capacity to procreate and her age is perhaps ranging from about 16 to 17 years and more but below 18 years, it would not shock the conscience of this Court if hypothetically speaking such a girl enters into a marriage relationship on her own free will, as oppose to a child of about 12 or 13 years voluntarily entering into a marriage relationship." Factual Background: The petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 herein are husband and wife. The two were in a love relationship since the year 2018 and in the year 2019 started living together as husband and wife with the knowledge and consent of the family members of petitioner No. 2. The petitioner No. 2 at the relevant point of time was about 16 years old. Sometime in the month of October 2019, the petitioner No. 2 started complaining of weakness with bouts of vomiting following which she was taken to Hospital. After conducting the required medical examinations, on 22.10.2019, it was confirmed that she was pregnant for 16 weeks 4 days. The Medical Officer of the said hospital informed the petitioner No. 1, the petitioner No. 3 and the uncle of the petitioner No. 2 that they are required to report the matter to the police station as the petitioner No. 2 was still a minor. After going to the Police Station, the petitioner No. 3 (the mother of the petitioner No. 2) was advised to lodge an FIR, which she duly did on 29.11.2019. Subsequently, a case under Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act was registered. The investigation was carried out and on 06.06.2020, the petitioner No. 1 was arrested by the police and was incarcerated in custody for a period of 90 days. Thereafter, the investigating officer filed the chargesheet inter alia, finding that there is a prima facie case made out against the accused/petitioner No. 1 under the aforesaid Sections. The case is now pending at the stage of evidence before the Court of the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong. The petitioners have approached the High Court praying to quash the pending case. Contentions of the Petitioners: Ms. A. Syiem, counsel for the petitioners, led the Court to the statement of the petitioner No. 2 made under Section 161 CrPC, where she had confirmed that she was in a relationship with the petitioner No. 1 since 2018 and has had physical relationship with him on several occasions and that too, with her consent, coupled with the fact that they are now staying together as husband and wife. It was submitted that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are now living a happy married life and as such, continuation of the proceedings before the Special Court (POCSO) would only cause great hardship and inconvenience to the parties involved including the family members. She relied upon the judgment of the High Court in Skhemborlang Suting & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya & Anr., to show that under similar facts and circumstances the Court had quashed an FIR and chargesheet under Section 5(j)(ii)/6, POCSO Act. It was, thus, prayed that this petition may be allowed and the related proceedings before the Special Court (POCSO) be set aside and quashed. Contentions of the Respondents: Mr. H. Kharmih, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, submitted that though there is no strong opposition to the prayer of the petitioners herein, however considering the fact that the case is at the evidence stage and that the Court in a related matter had denied to entertain a similar prayer on the ground that the recording of the evidence had already started, therefore the petitioners herein may also be directed to face the trial and to await the conclusion thereof. Court's Observations: The Court noted that the petitioner No. 2 had reiterated whatever she had stated before the police under Section 161 in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and even in her evidence as a witness before the Special Court. She has not changed her stand but has maintained that the petitioner No. 1 is now her husband and they are living together in a happy married life with a child born to them. It was also put on record that in the meantime the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have solemnized their marriage on 30.05.2022, upon the petitioner No. 2 attaining majority. The Court observed that one of the...

"Injustice To Divide A Well-Knitted Family": Meghalaya HC Quashes POCSO Charges Against Man Accused Of Having 'Consensual Sex' With Minor Wife

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags