Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With HC Order Quashing POCSO FIR Over 'Relationship' Between Man & Minor Girl

During the hearing of the case, the Bench was asked to look into the larger question, whether the Court would read down the law which states that girls have be aged 18 years and above to legally marry.

The advocate appearing for the State government argued that matters of similar nature needed some clarity - girls aged above 16 years and below 18 years marry their ‘partners’ and eventually, the latter gets into a legal pickle which includes incarceration up to 10 years.

“If we see our constitution, it recognizes custom as a law under Article 13. Various customary practises have been there, allowing to marry at teenage. Now, law impacts society and society impact law. The law says 18 years (legal age for marriage for girls). The society says 18 years is not right, for some reason. I know – law is there, we have to implement it. But one has to either read down the law because there are other writ petitions too, pending before this court. Because certain customs allow certain sects to marry below 18. So, should you have a uniform age?”

The advocate further argued that these were “grey areas” of the Constitution.

This issue, the advocate said, had been popping up quite frequently and therefore, urged the Court to look into the matter. “In certain parts of the country, more frequently”

“In this case, he (the respondent) has agreed to get married. There are cases when they don’t agree”, the Bench said.

Compromise without consent is impermissible – the Court had already laid down this principle, the State’s advocate said.

“It is not that we want to put the man behind bars. But milords, these problems are recurring on a daily basis. Milords, will have to read down the law or something”, the advocate persisted.

“Law and Justice are two faces of the same coin. You may be right in law but we want to do justice to the parties by closing the case”, Justice Nagarathna orally observed before the SLP was dismissed.

The High Court, while stating that ‘consent’ in cases concerning sexual act with a minor holds no legal sanctity and cannot be used as a defence, however, had observed that the personal relationship of the parties had traversed beyond the legal and moral bounds, “consequence whereof has begotten a child”.

Further, the High Court had noted that if FIR is not quashed, the petitioner would have to face incarceration for at least 10 years.

“This Court cannot be a silent spectator to or turn its back on the distressed family. If the impugned FIR is not quashed, the petitioner will have to face incarceration for at least 10 years. The mistake or blunder which otherwise constitutes an offence has been committed due to immature act and uncontrolled emotions of two persons, out of whom, one is still a minor.”

Case Title: The State Of Rajasthan Vs Tarun Vaishnav & Anr. | Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No(S). 1890/2023

Also Read - CJI DY Chandrachud Urges Parliament To Consider Concerns About Age Of Consent Under POCSO Act