The Orissa High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings against Fayazuddin Khan alias Badal Khan, who was accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and other relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case involved allegations of kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor Hindu girl. However, after the girl attained majority, the couple solemnized their marriage and are now living together peacefully.
Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, presiding over the case, observed:
“Running a trial against the petitioner in this case would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly given the fact that the victim and the petitioner have entered into a marital relationship and are living together in harmony. Sending the man to prison would not only be unjust but would also work against the best interests of the victim, as it could disrupt the peaceful life they have built together.”
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR filed on May 10, 2022, where the informant (victim’s mother) alleged that the accused had kidnapped her minor daughter on May 9, 2022, and stolen gold ornaments and ₹8,000 in cash. Consequently, a case was registered under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of the IPC, along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Following the investigation, the trial court took cognizance of the offenses. However, during the trial's progression, the petitioner and the victim legally married after she attained adulthood. The victim and her family also expressed their willingness to withdraw the case, stating that they had reconciled.
Court’s Observations
In assessing the merits of the quashing petition, the High Court differentiated between "sexual exploitation" and "adolescent love affairs."
“Adolescent love is a conceptual romantic relationship that may lead to a sexual encounter. However, there is no element of coercion, force, or manipulation to drag someone into sexual activities for personal gratification. If the accused is in a dominant position of power or trust and coerces or manipulates another for sexual activities, financial gain, or any other benefit, then it would be a case of exploitation. But if adolescents of the same age group fall in love, elope, and marry, such cases should not be criminalized.”
Justice Mishra referenced his own ruling in Rosalin Rout v. State of Odisha, 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 29, where he emphasized the importance of personal reconciliation and provided guidelines for quashing POCSO charges in cases where adolescent romantic relationships mature into marriage.
Precedents Considered
The court distinguished this case from Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan, where the Supreme Court ruled that POCSO cases should not be quashed based on compromise, as offenses under the Act are considered crimes against society. However, Justice Mishra noted that the Ramji Lal case involved a situation where a teacher exploited a minor girl, which was significantly different from a consensual adolescent relationship.
"Where the relationship has matured into marriage and is accepted by society, quashing the proceedings is not only justifiable but may also be in the interest of upholding the principles of reconciliation and personal autonomy."
Further, the court referred to In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, where the Supreme Court recognized the need to protect victims from unnecessary legal harassment in cases of consensual relationships.
Considering the reconciliatory nature of the relationship and the societal acceptance of the marriage, the court ruled that continuing the legal proceedings would serve no legitimate purpose.
“The facts here do not involve heinous or grave offenses that have a significant societal impact. Rather, the case remains in the personal realm, and thus, it would be more appropriate to apply principles of reconciliation.”
As a result, the criminal proceedings against Fayazuddin Khan were quashed, allowing the couple to continue their married life without legal obstacles.
Case Title: Fayazuddin Khan @ Badal Khan v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case No: CRLMC No. 3850 of 2024
Date of Judgment: March 04, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate
