Consensual Relationship Followed by Marriage Negates Prima Facie Offence and Justifies Quashing of Criminal Proceedings

The Petitioner sought to quash an FIR and criminal proceedings (Bolani P.S. Case No. 128 of 2025) involving allegations of rape under the pretext of a marriage promise

The complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) alleged that during a consensual relationship, the Petitioner established physical relations at a hotel in Puri after promising marriage

Following initial refusal due to parental pressure, the complainant filed the FIR on September 24, 2025

Both parties were approximately 20 years old at the time of the incident

Subsequently, the parties amicably settled the dispute, married on October 30, 2025, and the complainant filed a compromise affidavit expressing no objection to quashing the proceedings

1. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of law when the parties have entered into a consensual marital relationship

2. Whether a marriage involving a male under 21 years of age is void ab initio or merely voidable under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of BNSS) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the legal process

Subsequent marriage between lovers outweighs the need for criminal prosecution (Ayyub Malik v. State of Uttarakhand and Dasari Srikanth v. State of Telangana)

Sections 2(a) and 3 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, which stipulates that a marriage involving a "child" (male under 21) is voidable at the option of the contracting party, rather than void ipso facto

Judicial vigilance against the misuse of law (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Ors.)

The Court observed that the relationship was essentially a consensual adolescent relationship spanning several years, which did not satisfy the essential ingredients of "rape" even if the allegations were taken at face value

The Court reasoned that since the parties had subsequently married and were living harmoniously, the original grievance was resolved

Addressing the State's objection regarding the Petitioner’s age (20 years old, while the legal age for males is 21), the Court clarified that under Section 3 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, such marriages remain valid unless annulled by a competent court at the instance of the party who was a child

The Court found that forcing the litigation to continue would only harass the couple and jeopardize their matrimonial stability

The Court allowed the CRLMC, quashing the FIR and the consequential proceedings in J.J.C. Case No. 79 of 2025 and Special Case No. 96 of 2025. The interim orders were vacated to allow the parties to continue their marital life without judicial interference