Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar

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