Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh 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