Delhi High Court rules consent of minor irrelevant for quashing FIR, grants bail in ‘romantic relationship’ case

Findings

• The girl’s age could not be determined because she never went to school.
• The bone ossification test was conducted to determine her age, which stated that she is more than 14 years but less than 17 years.
• The FIR specifically mentions that the girl is friends with the petitioner, and her statement and cross-examination confirm that she had a liking for him and went with him to Agra out of her own free will.
• It prima facie appears to be a case of a romantic relationship between the petitioner and the girl.
• The girl was a minor at the time of the incident; therefore, her consent for sexual relations, if any, will have no value in the eyes of the law.
• However, if the girl’s age is considered to be 17 years, then she was of sufficient maturity and intellectual capacity.

• Since the girl was romantically involved with the petitioner, this favours the granting of bail.
• The girl was not subjected to violence or brutality.
• The court cannot carve out an exception to the statute and quash the FIR when the present case is of granting bail, for which the considerations are different.
• The petitioner’s presence during the trial can be ensured by imposing appropriate conditions.
• The petitioner is granted bail with the condition of furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety.

Arguments

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Neeraj Kumar Jha argued that his client and the girl were in a love relationship and emphasised the statement given by the minor, where she admitted that they love each other.
• Jha further mentioned that the girl has accepted that nothing wrong happened to her while she was with his client and that she had voluntarily, on her own free will, gone to Agra with him.
• He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested in August 2023, and since then, he has been in judicial custody.
• Highlighting that all material prosecution witnesses have been examined and there is no apprehension that the petitioner will tamper with the evidence, he prayed for the acceptance of the bail application.
• Assistant public prosecutor Tarang Srivastava, on the contrary, argued that the girl in her statement had stated that the petitioner had taken her forcefully to Agra and had testified in the examination-in-chief that the petitioner had sexual relations with her.

• Advocate Vrinda Bhandari, appearing for the girl, supported the contention raised by Srivastava.

Background

• The girl’s father filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner, a friend of his daughter, took his 14-year-old daughter around 11:00 am, when she had gone out to get tea.
• It was alleged that the girl, being a minor, was forcefully taken by the petitioner to Agra, where he established physical relations with her.
• During the investigation, the girl and the petitioner were traced in Agra and subsequently brought back to Delhi.
• Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested from his residence.