The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a POCSO prosecution against a man holding that the victim’s subsequent marriage, the birth of their child and her present wish to live with him cannot retrospectively change the legal consequences of alleged sexual intercourse during her minority.
Justice Sanjeev Narula passed the order on October 1, 2026, in a petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 106/2024 registered at Police Station Roop Nagar, Delhi.
The proceedings began after the victim’s mother reported her disappearance on April 6, 2024. The victim, born on September 14, 2007, was below 18 at the relevant time. She was later traced in October 2024, when a medical examination recorded that she was 28 weeks and 3 days pregnant.
In her statement, the victim said she had voluntarily accompanied the petitioner and travelled with him. She later lived with him and their son. After attaining majority, she expressed her wish to remain with him. The couple subsequently married on September 29, 2025, and a compromise deed was executed in May 2026.
The victim appeared before the High Court and stated that she had accompanied the petitioner willingly, had no grievance against him and was living with him and their child. Her mother also accepted the marriage and did not wish to pursue the case.
The Court acknowledged the victim’s present choice but held that her willingness could not constitute legal consent for sexual intercourse during minority. Under POCSO, a child means a person below 18 years, and the statutory protection does not depend upon proof of force, deception or grooming.
The Court observed:
"Section 2(1)(d) of POCSO defines a child as a person below 18 years of age. Under Section 3, absence of consent is not an ingredient of penetrative sexual assault upon a child. Clause sixthly of Section 375 IPC likewise covers sexual intercourse with a girl below eighteen, with or without her consent. Willingness may explain the relationship; it does not take the alleged act outside the statute."
The Court further held that an enduring relationship cannot retrospectively provide legal consent for acts alleged to have occurred when the victim was a child.
The High Court also considered the subsequent marriage, pregnancy and family circumstances. However, it found that these developments could not by themselves justify terminating a prosecution concerning alleged sexual conduct during undisputed minority.
Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the prosecution had a prima facie factual foundation and had not been shown to be manifestly false, malicious or an abuse of process. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the request for quashing and that the Special Court would independently consider the charges, evidence and available defences.
The petition filed by the petitioner was therefore dismissed.
Case Title: A v. The State & Anr.
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 4917/2026
