Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Minor Girl Was Living As Happily Wife Of Accused - POSCO Case Quashed: Meghalaya HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Meghalaya High Court recently quashed a FIR and criminal proceedings initiated against a man booked under the POCSO Act and IPC after noting that the accused and the victim-wife, a minor, were married.

According to the Bench of Justice W Diengdoh, even though the POCSI Act punishes sexual penetration of a minor, justice would not be served if the court did not consider other factors, such as consensual sex within the bond of marriage.

In this case, petitioner no.1 (the husband) lived with petitioner no.2 (the wife), who is the informant's daughter, as husband and wife, and despite the fact that the wife was a minor, both families approved of the relationship.

The husband brought his pregnant wife to the hospital when she became pregnant. As the wife was a minor, the hospital authorities notified the police after the pregnancy was confirmed.

The police visited the wife's residence and convinced her to file a FIR. Consequently, the wife filed a police report, and the husband was charged under Section 5(j)(ii)q/6 of the POCSO Act.

Later, however, the husband and wife jointly petitioned the High Court to dismiss the FIR.

The couple argued before the court that they were unaware of the law and were living happily as husband and wife. Further, it was stated that because the husband was the family's breadwinner, the family will face great hardships if the case against him is allowed to continue.

The court noted, after hearing the parties' arguments, that the wife does not believe her husband's actions constitute a violation of the POCSO Act.

According to the court, this is a case in which a minor girl was living with a man as his wife with the consent of both families, and she would only have to witness her husband being prosecuted because she is under the age of eighteen.

The court noted that the victim was only five months shy of her 18th birthday when the case was filed, and therefore justice will not be served by prosecuting the husband.

Therefore, the court granted the petitioner-Section husband's 482 CrPC motion and dismissed the POCSO Act FIR and proceedings.

D.D:19-07-2022

Olius Mawiong & Another Versus State of Meghalaya &b Anr

Latest Legal News