BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has clarified that the object of POCSO Act is to protect
minors from sexual abuse and not to criminalize the consensual relationship between two
adolescents.

While dealing with a petition seeking to quash a criminal case against a 21-year-old, against whom
offences under the Indian Penal Code, POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act were
registered, the Court noted that both the petitioner and the survivor came from the lower socio
economic segment and therefore, wasn’t aware of the consequences of engaging in consensual
sexual intercourse (with a minor).

“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. The petitioner and the survivor come from the lower socio-economic segment having
limited access to information and knowledge, thus depriving them about the consequences in having
consensual sexual intercourse. Though having sexual intercourse consensually with the minor is an
offence under the POCSO Act, however, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, to
secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings, otherwise, it
would result in miscarriage of justice to the survivor and the child”.

According to the State, the accused married and had sex with the minor despite knowing that she
was only 16 years of age. After the plea seeking to quash the case was moved, 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”.

Both the victim as well as their newly-born child are dependent on the accused for their livelihood
and that continuing the case against her husband would cause more misery to them, the court
was informed.

“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”, the court noted while quashing
the case against the petitioner and releasing him from judicial custody.

Advocates Abhishek Ramesh and Seetharamu P appeared for the accused. Advocate Vinay
Mahadevayya represented the State government and Advocate Gandavarapu Krishna Revanth
appeared for the survivor.