The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Friday rejected a plea by three applicants, including a 29-year-old labourer and his family, seeking to quash an FIR that accused them under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The bench of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nandesh S. Deshpande made it clear that the consent of a minor cannot be recognized under law, and hence no exceptional relief could be granted.
Background
The case stemmed from a complaint filed at Telhara Police Station in Akola district. According to the police, the victim - then aged 17 - had given birth to a baby boy in May 2025. Her marriage with applicant Mirza Aslam Beigh was allegedly solemnized a year earlier, when she had not yet turned 18. The FIR was lodged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, POCSO Act, and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
The applicants, including the husband and his parents, argued that the relationship was consensual, born out of a love affair. "It was not a case of force," their counsel submitted. They claimed that both families later accepted the relationship, and the marriage was registered once the girl attained majority. The victim herself, appearing through counsel, told the court that she had no objection to quashing the FIR and did not consider herself subjected to assault.
Court's Observations
The State, however, opposed the plea strongly. The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the accused, being 29 years old, had full knowledge that the girl was a minor. "Her consent, even if there, is not legally valid," she stressed.
The bench referred to recent developments in the Supreme Court, where the larger question of consensual adolescent relationships under POCSO is being debated. The apex court, in its "Right to Privacy of Adolescents" judgment earlier this year, had flagged concerns about criminalizing consensual teenage relationships but stopped short of diluting the law. Meanwhile, the Union Government has maintained that lowering the age of consent would "reintroduce the very mischief the law was enacted to prevent."
Echoing that line, the High Court reminded that POCSO's primary aim is to shield minors from sexual abuse and exploitation. The judges pointed out the health risks of teenage pregnancies, the persistence of child marriages despite legal prohibitions, and the social consequences that follow.
"Merely because the girl has now given birth to a child, the acts of the applicants cannot be brushed aside," the court said firmly.
The judgment also cited earlier rulings, noting that minors are deemed incapable of giving lawful consent.
"An infatuation or consensual relationship does not negate the offence of kidnapping a minor," the bench observed, relying on a 2021 Supreme Court decision.
Decision
Ultimately, the bench concluded that this was not a case for exercising its inherent powers to quash proceedings.
"As the consent of the minor is irrelevant and the victim was under 18 both at the time of marriage and childbirth, we do not find this to be a fit case," the court held.
The criminal application was dismissed, leaving the FIR intact.
Case Title:- Mirza Aslam Beigh Rashid Beigh & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number:- Criminal Application (APL) No. 1128 of 2025