[POCSO] Person not required to verify date of birth of girl from school records before entering into physical relationship: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that a person before entering into a physical relationship with a girl, is not required to judicially scrutinise her date of birth by verifying school records in order to make sure that she is not a minor [Hanzla Iqbal v. State]..Single judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh while granting bail to man accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POSCO Act) said the very fact that there was an Aadhar Card which showed that she was a major at the time of sexual relationship, would be sufficient for the accused to form an opinion that he was not indulging in physical relationship with a minor."The person, who is in a consensual physical relationship with another person, is not required to judicially scrutinise the date of birth of the other person. He is not required to see Aadhar card, PAN card and verify the date of birth from her school record before he enters into a physical relationship," the Court underscored.The Court was hearing a bail plea filed by a man booked for rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and for offences under the POCSO Act. It was the case of the prosecutrix that she and applicant exchanged numbers and became good friends. Thereafter, in September 2019 applicant took her to hotel and established a physical relationship..The prosecutrix and the accused had become acquainted when she went to buy the washing machine belonging to the accused.They then exchanged numbers and became friends..However, he later called her to a hotel and established physical relationship with her and made also made a video of the same. It was her case that the accused then used the video to blackmail her into having physical relationships with different people.It was also alleged that around August, 2021, the prosecutrix managed to escape from the applicant's house where she was held captive, after which she met a lady lawyer who helped her lodge First Information Report (FIR) against the accused..On the other hand, the counsel for the accused argued that, the prosecutrix has been giving her date of birth as per her own convenience, only to invoke the provisions of POCSO Act against him.The counsel further argued that assuming incident took place in September 2019, there was no explanation or reasons given, anywhere by prosecutrix as to why the FIR in question was registered only on April 30, 2022..It was further alleged that, the prosecutrix had 4 different dates of birth and the one in Aadhar Card was January 1, 1998 whereas in the PAN card it was shown as February 25, 2004.The counsel further stated that the only reason for lodging FIR was that the prosecutrix was extorting money from the applicant and he refused to comply with her illegal demands.The applicant's counsel also argued that, the investigation by police was shoddy, financial transactions showing deposit of money by the applicant in the account of prosecutrix was not investigated, the Aadhaar of the complainant was not verified and that there was no investigation regarding prosecutrix's multiple Instagram accounts..The bench was of the view that in the present case, there was much more than what meets the eye."As per the prosecutrix’s own showing and as the case stated in the FIR, she has had relationship with the applicant from 2019. If the applicant had blackmailed the prosecutrix, there was nothing preventing her from approaching the police at an earlier stage," the Court observed. With respect to date of birth the bench observed that, the Aadhar card showed her date of birth as January 1, 1998 and hence on the date of the alleged incident, the prosecutrix was supposed to be a major. Thereby, no case under POCSO is made out.However the Court added that the allegation that the Aadhar card was forcefully made by the applicant can be proved only in trial..The Court also noted there were transfers of huge amounts of money in favour of the prosecutrix indicating that it could be a case of honey trap."This Hon’ble Court in one bail application being BAIL APPL. 2813/2020 titled ‘Kapil Gupta vs. State’ has noticed that there are cases where innocent persons are being honey trapped and huge amounts of money are being extracted from them. This Court had directed Commissioner of Police to personally look into the matter and investigate such cases of honey trapping.".In light of this, the Commissioner of Police was directed to have a detailed investigation as regards the prosecutrix and if any such similar FIR has been registered by the prosecutrix against any other person in Delhi.The applicant was represented by Advocates Amit Chadha, Arpit Bhalla, Antim Chadha and Anjali Dhingra while the prosecutrix was represented by Advocates Aashneet Singh and Astha..[Read Order]