Police Filing POCSO Cases At Behest Of Minor Girl's Family Who Oppose Her Romantic Relationship A Trite And...
Filing of POCSO Cases at the Behest of the Minor Girl's Family Opposing Her Romantic Relationship
In recent times, courts across India have acknowledged that families of minor girls sometimes misuse the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) to criminalize consensual romantic relationships that the family disapproves of. This is especially prevalent in inter-caste, inter-religious, or socially unapproved relationships. Courts have described such filing of cases as “trite and routine,” recognizing a trend of invoking POCSO not to protect the child, but to penalize the boy or man involved.
⚖️ Legal Context
The POCSO Act was enacted to protect children (under 18 years) from sexual offences, with strict provisions. Under Section 2(d), a "child" means any person below the age of 18 years. Importantly, consent is immaterial under POCSO — any sexual act with a minor is deemed statutory rape or abuse, even if consensual.
However, Indian courts have distinguished between:
Abuse or coercion, and
Consensual romantic relationships between adolescents, often labeled as “Romeo-Juliet” cases.
🔍 Key Judicial Observations and Case Laws
1. Sabasthi v. State of Telangana (2023)
Telangana High Court acknowledged that the girl and boy were in a consensual relationship, and that the complaint by the girl's parents was motivated by their disapproval.
Held that prosecution under POCSO in such a situation may not serve the legislative intent, especially if the girl denies any coercion.
Court allowed quashing of FIR to prevent abuse of the law.
2. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 368 – Hadiya Case
Though not under POCSO, this case reinforced the right to choose one's partner and recognized that parental opposition cannot override individual autonomy, especially if the girl is an adult.
This principle often guides courts in evaluating motivated complaints under POCSO.
3. Jayaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu – Madras High Court (2022)
Recognized the increasing trend where POCSO is invoked by parents against boyfriends.
Observed that such criminalization could ruin the life of young boys, even when there is no element of coercion or abuse.
Suggested need for a relook at the age of consent or introducing judicial discretion in adolescent consensual cases.
4. V. Vijay v. State – Madurai Bench, Madras High Court (2021)
The Court noted that “Romeo-Juliet” type relationships are not uncommon, and where consent is present and there is no exploitation, courts should differentiate such cases from actual abuse.
Court exercised discretion and quashed proceedings, noting that the girl's statement supported the consensual nature of the relationship.
5. Court on its Own Motion v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Delhi High Court (2020)
Observed misuse of POCSO where minor girls eloped with partners of their choice and later the family retaliated by filing false cases.
Emphasized that though the law is strict, courts must scrutinize the intent and facts before proceeding.
🔎 Key Doctrines & Principles Evolved
Doctrine of Judicial Discretion: Courts have started applying discretion in quashing proceedings if they find the prosecution is motivated or oppressive.
Best Interests of the Child: The POCSO Act itself demands that interpretation should focus on the welfare and dignity of the child, not the honor or wishes of the family.
Consent Between Adolescents: While technically not a defense under POCSO, courts have acknowledged that mutual love affairs among adolescents should not always attract harsh criminal provisions.
Abuse of Process: If the complaint is clearly a tool to control the girl’s autonomy or punish the boy, it may amount to misuse of criminal law, and courts may quash such cases under Section 482 CrPC.
🧠 Constitutional Angle
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty: Encompasses right to choose a partner (see Shafin Jahan).
Article 15(3) allows special laws for children, but this cannot justify misuse that curtails freedoms under Article 21 without valid grounds.
Right to Privacy and Bodily Autonomy: Recognized in KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) includes sexual autonomy. Courts try to balance this with statutory provisions under POCSO.
✅ Summary
While the POCSO Act is essential to protect children from abuse, its mechanical application in consensual adolescent relationships can be counterproductive. Courts have increasingly recognized the pattern of misuse by parents who disapprove of their daughter’s romantic partner. In such cases:
Courts examine the intent behind the complaint,
Consider the girl’s statement and willingness, and
Apply judicial discretion to prevent misuse and injustice.
Thus, the filing of POCSO cases under parental pressure or social prejudice has been rightly termed “trite and routine,” and courts have acted to prevent abuse of such a powerful law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments