Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR in POCSO Case, Protecting Matrimonial Life of Petitioner and Victim

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, quashed an FIR in a POCSO case, ensuring the protection of the matrimonial life of the petitioner and the victim. The order, passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar on 31st May 2023, emphasized the consensual nature of the relationship between the parties involved and took into account their marital status and the existence of a child. The court held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the legal process.

The case, bearing FIR No. 129/2021, was registered at Police Station Maangrol, Baran, and initially invoked Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, cognizance was taken under various sections, including Sections 366, 376, 376(2)(n), Section 5(1)(j)(ii), and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The court took note of the victim’s statement, recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), wherein she stated that she willingly left her house with the petitioner, whom she loved, to get married. The victim further affirmed that they solemnized their marriage at a temple and subsequently established a physical relationship with mutual consent. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted the fact that the couple had been blessed with a child.

Drawing attention to a precedent in a similar case, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR should be quashed to prevent an abuse of the legal process and to safeguard the matrimonial life of the parties involved. The bench referred to the case of Tarun Vaishnav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2022 SCC OnLine Raj 2237), where the High Court had previously quashed an FIR in comparable circumstances. Although the said order was challenged in the Supreme Court, the Leave to Appeal was refused.

Considering the absence of any allegation of forceful kidnapping by the victim and the consensual nature of the physical relationship, the court concluded that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process. Additionally, the court acknowledged the existing marriage between the petitioner and the victim, as well as the fact that they have a child together.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the FIR and all the criminal proceedings arising from it, thereby providing respite to the petitioner and the victim. This judgment showcases the court’s commitment to ensuring justice while taking into account the unique circumstances of each case and upholding the principles of fairness and equity.

Date of Decision: 31/05/2023

Ankit Jatav vs State Of Rajasthan

Latest Legal News