Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High Court

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