Supreme Court says ‘subsequent marriage’ outweighs crime, quashes POCSO case against man for eloping with minor

The Supreme Court said that continuing the prosecution would be “harassing” and would amount to an “abuse of process of law”. (Image enhanced using AI)

‘Developments outweigh criminal continuation’

Addressing the central issue, the top court acknowledged that eloping with a minor may constitute an offence under law. However, it held that subsequent developments including voluntary marriage, cohabitation, and the birth of a child, significantly altered the context.

“The subsequent development of marriage between the two lovers and the fact that they have been merrily living would outweigh the need to take the alleged offence or the criminal proceedings to their logical end,” the bench observed.

The court further stated that continuing the prosecution would be “harassing” and would amount to an “abuse of process of law,” especially when both parties are now adults and leading a settled married life.

Complete justice, social welfare

Invoking broader principles, the judgment highlighted that the ultimate goal of law is the welfare of society. The court referred to its earlier ruling in K Kirubakaran vs State of Tamil Nadu (2025), where similar facts led to quashing of criminal proceedings, quoting the observation, “The final cause of law is the welfare of society.”

The Supreme Court underscored that criminal litigation can impose significant emotional and psychological burdens, particularly when it disrupts an otherwise stable family unit. “Negotiating the criminal proceedings in a court of law, notwithstanding that both are now husband and wife living together, would operate as painful interference in their happy life,” the court said.

FIR, charges, high court refusal

The case traces back to June 1, 2020, when an FIR was registered by the father of the woman, alleging that his then 17-year-old daughter had been enticed and taken away by the man.

The FIR invoked serious offences under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 368 (wrongful confinement), and 376(2)(d) (gang rape) of the IPC, along with Sections 5(8) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The trial court took cognisance on January 7, 2021, and criminal proceedings were initiated.

The man approached the Uttarakhand High Court seeking quashing of the case, arguing that he and the woman had married voluntarily. However, the high court declined relief, observing that the woman was a minor at the time of the alleged incident and that the issues raised required evidentiary examination during trial.

Supreme Court’s intervention

Before the Supreme Court, both appellants jointly asserted that they had been in a consensual relationship, faced opposition from their families, and had married of their own volition. They submitted that they were now living together as husband and wife and had a child from the marriage.

The court noted that the couple had been in a matrimonial relationship for nearly six years and were “happily residing” together. It also recorded that the woman had given a statement in August 2020 affirming that she had married the man out of her own free will and wished to live with him.

Importantly, the state did not dispute the factum of marriage during arguments. The Supreme Court emphasised that the “aim of all legal proceedings is to arrive at justice, meaningful and substantive,” and in certain circumstances, continuing prosecution would amount to an abuse of legal process.

Appeal allowed

Taking a compassionate yet pragmatic view, the court chose not to impose any conditions on the man while quashing the case. It expressed hope that he and his family would continue to care for the woman, now his wife.

Accordingly, the court set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s 2025 order and quashed all proceedings in the matter pending before the trial court, along with all incidental orders.