Delhi High Court Rules Minor's Consent Irrelevant for Quashing FIR, Grants Bail in Romantic Relationship Case
The Delhi High Court has made a significant observation in a recent case, stating that an FIR under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot be quashed merely because the survivor describes the relationship as consensual. This ruling came while granting bail to a man charged with kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor, highlighting the court's stance on the legal irrelevance of a minor's consent in such matters.
Court's Key Observations and Bail Grant
Justice Vikas Mahajan, presiding over the case, noted that the girl involved had admitted to being in a romantic relationship with the petitioner. However, the court refused to quash the FIR, emphasizing that it cannot carve out exceptions to the statute based on the victim's description of consent. The considerations for granting bail, the court clarified, are different from those for quashing an FIR.
The court granted bail to the petitioner with conditions, including furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety. It noted that the girl was not subjected to violence or brutality, and the petitioner's presence during the trial could be ensured through appropriate conditions.
Findings on Age and Relationship Dynamics
Age Determination: The girl's age could not be precisely determined as she never attended school. A bone ossification test indicated she was between 14 and 17 years old. If considered 17, she might have had sufficient maturity, but as a minor at the time of the incident, her consent for sexual relations holds no legal value.
Relationship Details: The FIR and the girl's statement confirmed that she had a liking for the petitioner and went with him to Agra out of her own free will. This prima facie suggested a romantic relationship, which the court considered in favor of granting bail.
Arguments Presented by Both Sides
For the Petitioner: Advocate Neeraj Kumar Jha argued that the relationship was consensual and based on love. He highlighted that the girl admitted nothing wrong happened and that she went voluntarily to Agra. With all material witnesses examined and no risk of evidence tampering, he prayed for bail, noting the petitioner had been in judicial custody since August 2023.
Against the Petitioner: Assistant Public Prosecutor Tarang Srivastava contended that the girl stated she was taken forcefully to Agra and testified to sexual relations. Advocate Vrinda Bhandari, representing the girl, supported this contention.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed by the girl's father, alleging that the petitioner, a friend of his 14-year-old daughter, took her to Agra around 11:00 am when she went out for tea. It was claimed she was forcefully taken and physical relations were established. During investigation, both were traced in Agra and brought back to Delhi, leading to the petitioner's arrest from his residence.
This ruling underscores the Delhi High Court's commitment to upholding the POCSO Act's provisions, ensuring that minors are protected regardless of their perceived consent, while balancing considerations for bail in cases involving romantic relationships.
