Consent of Minor is No Consent in the Eye of Law: Allahabad High Court Declines to Quash Rape Case

“Even If the Girl Consented, Her Age Below 18 Attracts Penal Consequences Irrespective of Alleged Consent”, Allahabad High Court in Amarjit Pal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another, Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 36258 of 2025, dismissed an application seeking quashing of a charge-sheet and summoning order under serious allegations of repeated sexual exploitation of a minor girl on a false promise of marriage. The Court, speaking through Justice Avnish Saxena, declined to intervene at the threshold, holding that once the prosecutrix is prima facie a minor, her “consent” loses all legal relevance, and the charge of statutory rape under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and POCSO Act cannot be wiped out at the pre-trial stage.

The ruling reasserts critical principles in sexual offence jurisprudence—primacy of documentary proof of age, the legal fiction of consent in case of minors, and the penal consequences under the newly introduced Section 69 BNS concerning sexual intercourse induced by deceitful promises such as marriage.

“Matriculation Certificate Carries Primacy for Age Determination”: Alleged Consent Invalid in Law Once Victim Proven to be Minor

The case stemmed from a charge-sheet filed against Amarjit Pal and his mother in Sessions Case No. 1241 of 2025, arising from Case Crime No. 38 of 2025, Police Station Barwapatti, District Kushinagar. The FIR alleged that Amarjit Pal had engaged in continuous sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix—a girl born on 01.01.2008—since the last four years, under a false promise of marriage. Notably, when the accused later refused to marry her despite distribution of wedding invitation cards, the complaint was escalated by the victim’s family.

The applicants had moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to quash the charge-sheet and proceedings on the ground that the victim was not a minor, had voluntarily consented, and the relationship was falsely criminalised after the accused refused marriage.

Rejecting this contention, the Court observed that “on the face of record, the victim is minor as is shown from her matriculation certificate annexed along with the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.2.” It held that the argument regarding her being “nearly 20 years of age” had no evidentiary basis, noting that “the matriculation certificate is to be given primacy.” [Para 10]

“Consent of a Minor is No Consent in the Eye of Law”: Admission of Sexual Relationship Strengthens Prosecution Case at Threshold

Justice Saxena found it significant that the accused had not denied the sexual relationship—in fact, they admitted it in paragraph 18 of their affidavit accompanying the Section 528 BNSS application. The affidavit clearly stated that the victim and the applicant were in a consensual relationship and had engaged in sexual intercourse over four years. However, as the Court clarified, this admission operated against the applicants.

“It is an admitted case of the applicant that the applicant no.1 has entered into sexual intercourse with the victim, which was allegedly consented, whereas the consent with the minor is no consent in the eye of law,” the Court held, underlining the well-established doctrine of statutory rape. [Para 3, 6, 13]

In this context, the Court also referred to Section 63 of the BNS, which defines rape to include intercourse “with or without her consent when she is under 18 years of age”, reinforcing that statutory rape is an offence irrespective of consent. [Para 13]

“False Promise of Marriage is a Deceitful Means Under Section 69 BNS”: New Provision Expands Criminal Liability Beyond Rape

A core legal point examined by the Court was the scope and applicability of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which criminalises sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage even if it does not amount to rape. This provision—absent in the old IPC—recognises the exploitation inherent in deceitful inducements and provides punishment up to 10 years with fine.

The Court observed:

“Section 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides that ‘Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished’...” [Para 11]

Importantly, the Court referred to Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, where the Supreme Court had clarified that false promises of marriage made with no intention to fulfill them attract criminal liability, distinguishing them from mere breach of promise. [Para 14]

Applying the principle to the facts, the Court observed that “allegations indicated promise was false since inception” and hence attracted the penal provision of Section 69 BNS.

“Section 233 BNSS Not Attracted – Pre-Cognizance Withdrawal of Complaint Does Not Bar Trial”

The applicants had also relied upon the procedural history involving the victim’s mother withdrawing an earlier complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS, arguing that this invalidated the current prosecution. However, the Court rejected this contention, holding that the previous withdrawal occurred at a pre-cognizance stage and did not attract the bar under Section 233 BNSS, which relates to consolidation and avoidance of parallel proceedings.

Justice Saxena held:

“This shows that neither the Special Court nor the High Court have taken into consideration the allegations made to summon the accused and therefore, the stage was pre-cognizance. As such, Section 233 BNSS will not put any dent on the prosecution case.” [Para 15]

The Court noted that the withdrawal was inconsequential to the independent registration of FIR and charge-sheet filed thereafter.

“Serious Allegations Involving Protection of Child Cannot Be Scuttled at Threshold”: Court Declines Quashing Plea

Summing up its observations, the Court reiterated that serious offences under the POCSO Act and BNS could not be brushed aside merely on the basis of contested facts such as consent or age in the face of clear documentary evidence. It held:

“The application moved under Section 528 BNSS is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.” [Para 15]

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the application, paving the way for the criminal trial to proceed.

The Allahabad High Court's decision in Amarjit Pal v. State of U.P. reinforces cardinal legal principles that underpin India's protective regime for minors under sexual offences law. The judgment draws a clear line: where the prosecutrix is under 18, consent loses legal significance, and even a consensual relationship becomes a punishable offence. With the advent of Section 69 BNS, the legal net has been cast wider to criminalise exploitation by deceit, especially in the guise of marriage promises. At the pre-trial stage, such factual controversies are not grounds for quashing, particularly when documentary evidence of minority and admissions of physical relationship exist.

Date of Decision: January 21, 2026