In a hearing that felt unusually tense yet emotional, the Delhi High Court on Friday declined to quash an FIR against a young man and his family, despite the “victim”-now an adult-appearing in court with the couple’s infant child and pleading for closure. Justice Sanjeev Narula said the court was moved by the circumstances, but the law left little room for judicial sympathy.
Background
The case began with a domestic violence call to the 181 helpline in July 2023. When police reached the Bhalswa Dairy residence, they found a teenage girl living as the “wife” of Petitioner No. 1, Prince Kumar Sharma. Both families claimed the pair had married in March 2023.
Read also: Supreme Court signals fresh push for pending 2025 guidelines, adjourns plea by disabled students
However, when the girl was produced before the Child Welfare Committee, her documents showed she was born on 2 October 2006, making her only 16 years and 5 months at the time. She also told the magistrate that she did not want any action against her husband or in-laws. Her medical examination revealed a pregnancy of about ten weeks, which led to registration of the FIR under rape, POCSO, and child marriage provisions.
The petitioners-Prince, his parents, and relatives-approached the High Court arguing that the relationship was voluntary and that the FIR was tearing apart a small family already struggling to stay afloat.
Court’s Observations
Justice Narula interacted with the young woman personally. She sat in court with her baby, born earlier this year, and repeated that she wanted “no case, no conflict.” Her responses were calm; nothing suggested pressure from the family.
Read also: Supreme Court Slams Madhya Pradesh High Court for 'Shocking' Habeas Corpus Bail Order, Sets Aside
Still, the bench remarked, “This is precisely the kind of matter in which the statutory framework of the POCSO Act sits uneasily with lived reality.”
The court explained that under the POCSO Act, consent of a minor has no legal effect. The Act criminalises all sexual acts with anyone below 18, regardless of genuine affection, relationship, or even marriage rituals. The judge emphasised that Parliament deliberately fixed 18 as the age below which “the law refuses to recognise sexual consent.”
In one of the sharper observations, the bench noted, “The instinctive response is to ask why the FIR should not be quashed when the family has stabilised. But the legal position is not ambivalent.”
He further stressed that the case wasn’t a borderline age dispute. The pregnancy, coupled with undisputed age records, placed the alleged acts squarely within POCSO’s prohibited zone.
Justice Narula also flagged a broader concern: both families were accused of facilitating a child marriage. “To quash the case may appear as a signal that such marriages can be cleansed by later cohabitation,” the court said, adding that courts must be cautious not to unintentionally legitimise underage marriages or relationships shaped by social pressure.
Decision
Calling it “one of those hard cases where the pull of equity is strong, but the command of the statute is stronger,” the High Court dismissed the petition.
The FIR and all related proceedings will continue before the trial court.
The order ends with a clarification that these observations are limited to the quashing proceedings and should not prejudice the trial itself.
Case Title: Prince Kumar Sharma & Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 7145/2025 & CRL.M.As. 30024–30025/2025
Date of Decision: 14 November 2025
