Consensual Adolescent Relationship Resulting in Marriage and Amicable Settlement Justifies Quashing of POCSO and Rape Proceedings

The petitioners sought quashing of a cognizance order dated 01.07.2021 for offences under Sections 363, 366(A), 376/34 of the IPC and Sections 8/17 of the POCSO Act.

The FIR was lodged by the victim’s father (O.P. No. 3), alleging his 16-year-old daughter was forcibly kidnapped at gunpoint.

The petitioners contended the relationship was consensual and that the victim and Petitioner No. 5 had solemnized a marriage.

While school certificates suggested minority, medical reports estimated the victim's age between 18–19 years.

Subsequently, a settlement was reached via a panchayat, and the victim—having attained majority—filed an affidavit stating she had married another person (Mukesh Kumar) and did not wish to pursue the criminal case.

1. Whether criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act and IPC should be quashed when the material suggests a consensual adolescent relationship and the parties have reached an amicable settlement?

2. Whether the continuance of prosecution in a case of consensual relationship, where the victim no longer supports the charges, constitutes an abuse of the process of the court?

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS) regarding the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Prashant v. State of NCT Delhi (2025) 5 SCC 764, which cautioned against criminalizing consensual relationships that turn bitter.

Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1030, regarding the relevance of settlements in improving mutual harmony.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh (2026) SCC OnLine SC 40, which highlighted the misuse of POCSO provisions in consensual adolescent "Romeo-Juliet" scenarios.

Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra (2025) INSC 1351, which mandated quashing where consent is devoid of coercion or fraud.

The court reasoned that the case originated from "adolescent love" rather than criminal intent, noting that the victim’s medical report and judicial statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. placed her at or near the age of majority (17–19 years), indicating sufficient maturity to understand her actions.

The court observed a "worrying trend" of criminalizing consensual relationships via POCSO and emphasized that welfare legislations should not be used to settle personal scores or harass parties after they have moved on.

Since the victim had entered into a settlement, married elsewhere, and expressly stated she left voluntarily, the court determined that the legal ingredients for kidnapping and sexual assault were not met on a factual level.

Connecting the law to the facts, the court held that forcing a trial where the victim refuses to support the prosecution would be a futile exercise and a waste of judicial machinery.

The High Court allowed the application and quashed the cognizance order dated 01.07.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Supaul. All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.