The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a criminal case against a man who married a 16-year-old Muslim girl, holding that a marriage recognised under personal law cannot create an exception to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Justice Sanjeev Narula delivered the judgment on September 23, 2026, in a petition filed by Bilal and another seeking quashing of FIR No. 189/2026 registered at Police Station Darya Ganj under Section 64(1) of the BNS and Section 6 of POCSO.
The girl was born on September 19, 2008, and married the first petitioner on December 20, 2024, when she was 16 years and three months old. The man was then nearly 28. The couple subsequently lived together.
According to the judgment, the girl consistently stated that the marriage had taken place with the consent of both families and that she had not been subjected to force or coercion. The FIR came to be registered after her age was discovered during a hospital visit while she was pregnant. She later gave birth to a stillborn child in June 2026.
The petitioners argued that under Muslim personal law, a Muslim girl who had attained puberty was competent to marry, and that the validity of the nikah meant the subsequent sexual relationship could not attract criminal liability.
The High Court drew a clear distinction between the civil validity of a marriage and the operation of criminal law. It said that even if the marriage was assumed to be valid for the purpose of the petition, personal law could not create an exception to POCSO where Parliament had not provided one.
The Court observed:
“Personal law may determine whether a marriage has been contracted and the civil consequences that follow. It cannot supply an exception to a criminal law where Parliament has provided none.”
The Court noted that POCSO defines a child as a person below 18 years and that the BNS also fixes 18 as the relevant age, including by limiting the marital exception to a wife who is not below 18. The Court further relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Independent Thought v. Union of India and Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action v. Union of India.
The High Court also clarified that the girl’s willingness and the consent of the families could not alter the statutory protection available to a child.
“Marriage does not advance a child’s age. A person who is sixteen before the ceremony remains sixteen afterwards. For POCSO and Section 63 BNS, that fact is determinative of the legal capacity to consent to the sexual act.”
The Court held that a marriage claimed to be valid under Muslim personal law could not, by itself, provide immunity from POCSO or the BNS for sexual intercourse with a wife who was below 18 at the relevant time.
The Court therefore dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR. It also declined the prayers for disciplinary proceedings against the police officials and compensation. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the request for quashing and did not constitute a finding of guilt, leaving the trial court to decide the matter on the evidence and in accordance with law.
Case Title: Bilal & Anr. v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 2976/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29702/2026
