Recently, in a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case involved a consensual relationship with a minor, allegedly premised on a promise of marriage. In examining the legal implications, the Bench noted that the prosecution lacked corroborative evidence and that there was a significant delay in lodging the complaint, factors which, taken together, undermined the credibility of the allegations and warranted the quashing of proceedings.
The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the prosecutrix in 2022, alleging offences under Sections 417 (cheating), 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC, and Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act. The prosecutrix, who was a major at the time of filing the FIR, claimed that she was 15 years old when she entered into a consensual relationship with the appellant, based on his promise to marry her. She alleged that the relationship continued until she attained majority, at which point the appellant reneged on his promise, and she faced humiliation from his family members.
The appellant, along with his parents and uncle, was named in the FIR. Invoking the inherent powers of the Calcutta High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the co-accused secured the quashing of proceedings against them. However, the High Court declined to quash the FIR against the appellant, prompting his appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court meticulously examined the factual matrix and the legal arguments advanced by both parties. The State and the complainant contended that the prosecutrix’s consent, given when she was a minor, was legally invalid, thereby rendering the appellant’s actions tantamount to rape under the POCSO Act. The Court, however, found this argument unsustainable in light of the evidence, or lack thereof, and the circumstances surrounding the FIR.
The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Arvind Kumar observed, “In our considered opinion, as regarding the rape being committed by the appellant when the prosecutrix was a minor, there is absolutely no evidence, and definitely no forensic evidence with the prosecution. It is only an allegation in the FIR after more than 03 years, in order to make out a case under the POCSO Act, that such an act of rape was committed three years back when she was a minor. She also categorically states that she consented to the act as there was a promise of marriage by the appellant.”
The Court further relied on its precedents to clarify the legal position on consensual relationships premised on a promise of marriage. It noted, “This Court has held in several decisions that promise to marriage and the subsequent physical relationship between the two with consent would not amount to rape and the reasons therein have been assigned."
The Bench stressed the significant delay in lodging the FIR, over three years after the alleged incident, as a factor suggesting misuse of legal processes. The Court held, “Under the present facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the evidence with the prosecution, particularly the long delay in lodging the FIR itself suggest that the present criminal proceedings lodged against the appellant are nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the High Court ought to have invoked its inherent jurisdiction in the case of the appellant as well as it did while quashing the proceedings for the remaining accused.”
By allowing the appeal and quashing the proceedings against the appellant, the Apex Court has clarified the scope of the POCSO Act in cases arising from consensual relationships involving minors. The Bench emphasised the need for lower courts to carefully assess the evidentiary foundation and timing of such allegations before permitting criminal trials to proceed.
Case Title: Kunal Chatterjee Vs. The State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7004 Of 2025
Coram: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Aravind Kumar
Advocate for Appellant: AOR Kunal Malik, Advs. Sunando Raha, Sk Sayan Uddin, Akash Singh Rana, Anna Oommen
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Parag Chaturvedi, Mrinal Prajapati, Smarhar Singh, Bikram Mandal
Picture Source :
