POCSO Act not meant to criminalise consensual relationships of adolescents: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently remarked that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was not meant to criminalise consensual sexual relationships between adolescents, but to protect them from sexual abuse [G Raghu Varma v. The State Of Karnataka]..Justice Hemant Chandangoudar made the observation while quashing a criminal case against a 21-year-old who was booked under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act for marrying a minor girl.The Court opined that the accused and the minor girl come from a lower socio-economic section of society with limited access to information, and were thus unaware of the consequences of their actions.“The object of POCSO Act is to protect minors from sexual abuse and not to criminalize the consensual relationship between two adolescents who had consensual sexual intercourse without knowing the consequences,” remarked the Court..As per the Bengaluru Police, the accused married and had sex with the girl despite knowing that she was a minor. The girl is 16 years old at present.The accused moved the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal case on the ground that he was in a relationship with the girl and all the actions had taken place with consent.The survivor and her parents filed a joint affidavit before the High Court stating that the marriage was solemnised “inadvertently” and “in ignorance of law”..The Court was also told that a male child was born to the couple last year. The girl and the newly-born child are dependent on the accused for their livelihood. It was contended that jailing the accused would cause more misery to the survivor and her child.However, the State opposed the plea and submitted that the offences involved are heinous. .After considering the submissions, the Court noted that the parents of the girl have expressed their inability to maintain her and the newborn since they come from an economically weaker section of society.“The petitioner is in judicial custody and is unable to support the survivor and the child. If the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, it would result in incarceration causing more misery and agony to the survivor and her child rather than securing the ends of justice,” it reasoned..The Court further said that though having sexual intercourse with a minor even with consent is an offence, it would be appropriate to quash the proceedings, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.“Otherwise, it would result in miscarriage of justice to the survivor and the child,” the Bench said while quashing the criminal proceedings.The Court also ordered immediate release of the petitioner from judicial custody..Advocates Abhishek Ramesh and Seetharamu P represented the accused.Advocate Vinay Mahadevayya represented the State. Advocate Gandavarapu Krishna Revanth represented the survivor..[Read Judgment]