Bombay High Court Upholds Protection Laws for Minors, Rejects Plea for Quashing FIR
Court emphasizes protection of minors, dismissing application despite victim's consent and subsequent marriage.
In a significant judgment reinforcing the protection of minors, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench rejected a plea to quash an FIR under multiple statutes including the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The case involved Mirza Aslam Beigh Rashid Beigh and others, where the applicants sought to nullify the FIR citing a consensual relationship and subsequent marriage with the minor victim.
The bench, comprising Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nandesh S. Deshpande, deliberated on the application filed by the accused, including the husband and family members of the victim. The court was unmoved by arguments that the relationship was consensual and rooted in love, emphasizing that the consent of a minor is legally irrelevant under the prevailing statutes.
The FIR, lodged by Police Head Constable Rahul Tayade, was registered after the victim, aged 17 at the time, delivered a child. The marriage, performed according to Muslim rites, took place before the victim reached the legal age of 18, prompting the police to register the case under sections of the POCSO Act, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
The court underscored that the statutes prioritize the welfare and protection of minors, rejecting the plea for exceptional circumstances due to the societal implications and legal framework governing such cases. The judgment aligns with the Supreme Court's stance on maintaining the age of consent to protect minors from exploitation, as highlighted in related cases and the pending proceedings before the apex court regarding adolescent relationships.
Despite arguments from the victim’s counsel supporting the marriage and lack of objection from the victim, the bench emphasized that the law is designed to protect minors collectively, not tailored for individual circumstances. It cited that reducing the age of consent would counter the very objectives these laws seek to achieve.
The judgment not only reiterates the legal position on minor consent but also serves as a reminder of the state's role in safeguarding the interests of minors, irrespective of familial or societal pressures. The application for quashing the FIR stands rejected, affirming the court's commitment to upholding the legal protections afforded to minors.
Bottom Line:
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 - Consent of a minor in a physical relationship or marriage is irrelevant - FIR quashing application rejected as the case does not fall under exceptional circumstances.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4(1), 8; Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 - Sections 9, 10, 11; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 64(1); Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 361; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482.
