High Court Invokes Section 482 CrPC to Quash POCSO Conviction to Protect Fundamental Right to Family Life

The appellant, Roshan, and the survivor, Anjali, were involved in a consensual romantic relationship while Anjali was a minor (approx. 14 years old).

Their physical relationship resulted in two pregnancies (in 2017 and 2019), both reported to the police by hospital authorities as required by law, though neither Anjali nor her family lodged complaints.

Roshan was convicted in two separate trials under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment in each case.

Upon attaining majority, Anjali married Roshan, and they currently live as a family with two children, aged 9 and 7.

Anjali filed applications (CRAN/3/2026) seeking to quash the convictions to protect her matrimonial life and the children's welfare.

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash a conviction for a non-compoundable offence under the POCSO Act in the interest of justice and matrimonial harmony.

2. Whether the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution overrides the statutory rigidity of the POCSO Act in cases of genuine adolescent relationships.

The court applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which saves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on Article 21 of the Constitution, affirming the right to marry a person of one's choice as established in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. and Lata Singh v. State of U.P.

The court followed Ramgopal v. State of M.P., which allows quashing non-compoundable criminal proceedings of a private nature if parties have settled.

Furthermore, it cited Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of U.P. and K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, where the Supreme Court quashed POCSO proceedings to preserve family units in cases of consensual love rather than lust.

The court found that the relationship was rooted in mutual affection rather than carnal lust, noting that Anjali expressly testified to wanting to be the mother of the appellant's children.

It observed that the Trial Courts were bound by the "rigidity" of the POCSO Act, which criminalizes all sex with minors regardless of consent.

However, the High Court determined that strict adherence to the letter of the law would lead to the "annihilation" of a happy family and render the survivor and her children destitute.

Applying Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court reasoned that because the survivor is now the appellant's wife and they have a stable family, continuing the prosecution would constitute an abuse of process.

It held that the "final cause of law is the welfare of society" and that the court must strike a balance between deterrence and rehabilitation.

The High Court quashed the entire proceedings in Special Case No. 18 of 2017 and Special (POCSO) Case No. 12 of 2019, including the convictions and sentences passed against Roshan.

The appellant’s bail bonds were discharged, and both appeals were disposed of in favor of the appellant.