Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission Section 127 CrPC | Past Compromise Not An Eternal Estoppel To Bar Wife From Seeking Enhancement In Maintenance: Orissa High Court States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Or Adjudicate Title Disputes: Telangana High Court Principal Employer Cannot Abdicate Statutory Liability For Overtime Wages Of Contract Labour Despite Contractual Indemnity Clauses: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Re-valuation Of Structures Once Compensation Dispute Is Adjudicated Under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act: Telangana High Court Revenue Village Naming | Government Must Ensure Names Do Not Reflect Any Person, Caste, Or Religion Under Policy Guidelines: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Status As 'Payee' Or 'Holder In Due Course': Himachal Pradesh High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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