Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Bombay High Court dismisses POCSO sexual assault case with mother's consent

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR against a 19-year-old male student that was registered under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for the alleged abduction and sexual assault of a minor teenager. The complaint was filed by the victim's mother, but the court observed that the couple was on "friendly terms" and had lived together without informing the girl's parents. This miscommunication was the reason behind the FIR, according to the court.

The bench comprising of Justices Nitin Sambre and SG Dige observed that both parties had decided to quash the case by consent, as continuing the proceedings would put both parties to hardship. The bench also noted that the issue of quashing a POCSO case by consent is currently pending adjudication before the Supreme Court.

The case was registered on 26th November, 2021, after the victim girl, aged 15 years, could not be found. Subsequently, sections 354 of the IPC and sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act were added. However, in the consent affidavit submitted before the High Court, the victim's mother stated that her daughter had eloped with the petitioner on her own accord. The mother also mentioned a communication gap between the teenager and her parents.

Advocate Vishwanath Patil argued on behalf of the petitioner and said that the allegations of sexual harassment under section 354 of the IPC were added only subsequently. The petitioner sought to quash the FIR before the High Court, which recorded that it had interacted with the complainant and found that she was not pressured to settle the case.

The bench relied on two previous judgments, Satender Sharma Vs. State and Anr and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, where the court held that an FIR lodged out of frustration can be set aside by consent. In the present case, the court observed that the petitioner appeared to have been in friendly terms with the victim girl, and they had stayed together without informing the girl's parents. The bench quashed the FIR based on these observations.

Shiva Chanappa Odala v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

 

Latest Legal News