Marriage cannot erase sexual assault of minor: Delhi HC refuses to cancel FIR

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a sexual assault case against a man who married the minor girl involved, ruling that her wish to continue living with him and his criminal liability for the alleged acts are separate issues in law, news agency Press Trust of India reported.The court said the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was enacted to give children special protection against sexual abuse and exploitation. It added that humanitarian considerations arising from the couple's marriage and family circumstances could not, by themselves, justify ending the prosecution.In a judgement passed on November 4, Justice Sanjeev Narula said, "Parliament has deliberately fixed an age (18 years) below which consent to sexual activity has no legal efficacy. The protection does not depend upon proof of force, coercion or deception, or upon an assessment of whether the particular child was sufficiently mature to understand the relationship."The High Court also referred to a Supreme Court judgement which made it clear that marriage does not take away the protection given to a child under criminal law. "The victim's wish to continue living with the petitioner, her mother's support for that choice and the welfare of the child have received due consideration," the court said."The court does not doubt the sincerity of their request or overlook the hardship that continuation of the proceedings may entail for the family. Those considerations, however, do not answer the allegations or furnish an independent ground for quashing a prosecution of this nature," it added. The court said the girl's wishes and the question of criminal liability for acts allegedly committed when she was a minor were distinct in the eyes of law.According to PTI, the court was hearing the man's plea to quash a first information report registered in 2023 over alleged offences of kidnapping and sexual assault of the minor under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. His petition was based on a settlement between the parties and their subsequent marriage.According to the FIR, the girl's mother lodged a complaint after her 15-year-old daughter went missing in February 2023. The girl was traced in December that year and was found to be pregnant.In her statement before a magistrate, the girl said she had voluntarily accompanied the man and had physical relations with him of her own will.The man's counsel told the court that the couple had married in February 2023, that a child was born to them in June 2024, and that they were living happily as a family.The prosecutor opposed the plea, saying school records showed that the girl was born on March 15, 2008. She was, therefore, about 14 years and 10 months old when she left home in February 2023.The prosecutor argued that the allegations involved serious offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act, and that the subsequent marriage and settlement could not provide a legal basis for ending the prosecution.The High Court observed that the material on record, at first sight, established a physical relationship between the man and the girl. The man had also acknowledged that he was the father of the child."These circumstances provide a substantial prima facie foundation for the allegation of penetrative sexual assault and the aggravated circumstance contemplated under Section 5(j)(ii), punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act," the court said.It noted that the POCSO Act defines a child as a person below 18 years of age and treats penetrative sexual assault on a child resulting in pregnancy as an aggravated offence.The High Court left it open to the man to approach the Supreme Court and seek any relief available under its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. It clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on whether such relief should be granted.In refusing to quash the case, the High Court reiterated that the girl's decision to live with the man, her mother's support and the family's circumstances could not override allegations of serious offences committed when she was a minor.- Ends(With PTI inputs)