Punishing An Adolescent Boy Who Enters Into A Relationship With A Minor Girl Was Not At All The Objective Of POCSO Act: Madras High Court

 Case Ref: Vijayalakshmi and another -vs- state of tamilnadu & another - madras hc - J N.ANAND VENKATESH

The Defacto Complainant/mother and the victim girl jointly filed petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the accused boy, who is facing trial before the Court below for offences under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of the POSCO Act and Section 9 of the Prohibition of the Child Marriage Act

The victim girl is well known to the accused/boy and they were in love with each other. Ultimately, they decided to get married and went away from their respective homes and a police complaint is filed and the same has now resulted in criminal proceedings against accused.

In Sabari v. Inspector of Police reported in 2019 (3) MLJ Crl 110, had discussed in detail about the cases in which youths of the age group of 16 to 18 years are involved in love affairs and how in some cases ultimately end up in a criminal case booked for an offence under the POSCO Act.

The relevant portions alert to youth and suggest legislature in Sabari vs Inspector of Police judgment are extracted here under:

• 26) In addition to the above, this Court is of the view that 'warning' of attraction of POCSO Act must be displayed before screening of any film, which have teenage characters suggesting relationship between boy and girl." 
  
• 29) "..........The Act can be amended to the effect that the age of the offender ought not to be more than five years or so than the consensual victim girl of 16 years or more. So that the impressionable age of the victim girl cannot be taken advantage of by a person who is much older and crossed the age of presumable infatuation or innocence”.

 

    A reading of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the POCSO Act would show that the Act was brought into force to protect children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography, pursuant to Article 15 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

   To quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences pending against the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath, reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 and in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash non-compoundable offences. One very important test that has been laid down is that the Court must necessarily examine if the crime in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that offences against the society with overriding public interest even if it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed.

Here, the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves the minor girl and the adolescent boy and their respective families only. It involves the future of two young persons who are still in their early twenties. The boy is working as an Auto driver to eke his livelihood. Quashing the proceedings, will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and it will in fact pave way for the minor girl and the boy to settle down in their life and look for better future prospects. No useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings and keeping these proceedings pending will only swell the mental agony of the victim girl and her mother and not to forget the adolescent boy as well. 

 

In this context, the Madras High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings in Special S.C.No.24 of 2018 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court (Fast Track Mahila Court) Erode in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.