Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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