POCSO Act enacted to protect kids from sexual exploitation, not to criminalise consensual relationships between young adults: Delhi HC

According to the facts of the case, a 17-year-old girl was married to a man on June 30, 2021, but she did not wish to stay with him. On October 27, 2021, she went to the accused’s house, her friend, who took her to Punjab where they got married. The girl’s father then lodged an FIR against the accused, alleging he took her against her will.

Justice Singh interacted with the alleged victim in his chamber in the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the state. She stated that at the time of marriage with the accused on October 28, “she was an adolescent and around 17 years of age” – her date of birth being October 1, 2004.

She further said she got married to the accused out of her “own free will and without any undue influence, threat, pressure or coercion” and wants to stay with him. It was also noted by the HC that she had moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court and submitted that she married the accused willingly and “her parents were threatening to cause harm to her and her husband”. Pursuant to which the Punjab and Haryana HC directed that the couple be provided with adequate police protection.

The HC thereafter observed that this was not a case where the girl was “coerced into the relationship” with the accused. In fact, she had herself gone to the accused’s home and asked him to marry her, it noted. “The statement of the victim makes it clear that this is a romantic relationship between the two and that the sexual act between them was consensual. Although the victim is minor and, hence, her consent does not have any legal bearing, I am of the opinion that the factum of a consensual relationship borne out of love should be of consideration while granting bail,” the HC held.

On the nature and intent of POCSO, the HC referred to a January 2021 order of the Madras High Court in Vijayalakshmi v. State which said, “what came to be a law to protect and render justice to victims and survivors of child abuse, can, become a tool in the hands of certain sections of the society to abuse the process of law”.

Granting bail to the man, the HC opined that to ignore the statement of the girl and “let the accused suffer (in) jail” would amount to “perversity of justice”.

While making the observation, the HC, however, said proceedings before the court were for grant of bail and not for quashing of FIR. “It is not a case where the slate of the applicant is wiped clear,” it held. The man was directed to furnish a personal bond and surety bond of Rs 10,000 each and directed to join the investigation when called by the investigating officer concerned.