CASE TITLE : ROJALIN ROUT & ANR. V. STATE OF ODISHA & ANR.
CASE NO : CRLMC NO. 3460 OF 2023 and Batch of Cases
DATE OF JUDGMENT : April 22, 2024

POCSO Act has led to increase in vindictive litigation and has caused widespread injustice in tribal hamlets and rural India causing uncalled-for arrests and incarnations.

The Court was hearing a batch of petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with identical prayers to quash FIRs and pending criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO Act’) against a number of persons in different cases of sexual intercourse arising out of adolescent romantic relationships or promises of marriage. A common thread ran across all the cases, i.e., in every such case the victim was under the age of majority at the time of commission of alleged offences.

The Bench took into account the fact that in each of these cases, the parties claimed to have settled the disputes between them mutually and they were not interested to carry on the litigation anymore. Thus, the important legal question which cropped up for consideration is that whether the High Court is empowered to quash criminal proceedings, especially in heinous cases like rape and POCSO offences, on the basis of mutual settlement between the concerned parties.

To answer the aforesaid question, the Court examined relevant statutory provisions and judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. From a conspectus of the legal precedents, the Single Bench observed that adolescent romantic and sexual relationships have been judicially recognized to be normal and criminalization thereof has been viewed as averse to the objectives of the POCSO Act.

The Court went a step further to recognize the rising numbers of such relationships and how criminal cases are often filed against male partners over petty issues. Underlining the objective behind enactment of the POCSO Act, it observed as follows:

“The aim of the POCSO Act is to protect minors from rapacious sexual offences and sexual violence by predators and criminals but does not aim to criminalize consensual sex of teenagers who have not attained the age of majority. The object is certainly not to punish teenagers who have not attained the age of majority in romantic or consensual relationship and accused them as offenders under the POCSO Act.”

The Court also flagged a very pertinent practical issue relating to the effect of the POCSO Act vis-à-vis rural and tribal people and it observed thus:

“In the Rural India as well, particularly in tribal hamlets, the provisions of the POCSO Act have caused widespread injustice, resulting in the uncalled-for arrest and incarcerations. Adivasi and the tribal have their unique customs and traditions with girls and boys marrying and living together after reaching puberty. The marriage in these communities marked as a tradition from adolescence to adulthood and men are considered ready for marriage based on their physical fitness. Unfortunately, many grooms over the age of 21 years have been arrested for marrying brides under the age of 18 years. The tribal population in India is mostly illiterate. Hence, they often fall into the grips of the POCSO Act.”

Basing on the aforesaid observations, the Court deemed it justified to quash the pending criminal proceedings in all the cases except the one where sexual intercourse was found to be non-consensual and forceful.

CASE TITLE : DR. PRIYANK TAPURIA V. STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.
CASE NO : CRLMC NO. 385 of 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT : June 20, 2024

Merely rejecting to marry a girl after being engaged to her does not amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.

The Court was hearing a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by a doctor who was charge-sheeted under Section 306, IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of his fiancé. The brief fact leading to the criminal prosecution is that, both the families of the petitioner as well as the deceased girl had decided to get the couple married in 2019. However, as the petitioner was still pursuing his medical education, he insisted for postponing the marriage for two years.

The family members of the girl were not prepared to wait for such a long time and thus, fixed her marriage with another man. Though the ring ceremony was held but the marriage could not be solemnized for some reasons. Subsequently, the proposal of marriage between the petitioner and the deceased girl reconvened and accordingly, both got engaged in May, 2021.

Surprisingly, the petitioner started showing reluctance to get married to the deceased after the engagement. In the night of 12/13 September 2021, both had a long telephonic conversation after which the deceased informed her mother that she went to bed with a ‘heavy heart’ after talking to the petitioner. At about 08:00 AM, the complainant-mother found the room of the deceased locked from inside and when she peeped into the room from the window, she found the deceased hanging from the ceiling with a wearing garment.

She informed the matter to the police immediately and accordingly, an unnatural death case was registered. She again went to the police on 20.09.2021 and lodged an FIR implicating the petitioner for the death of the deceased. The police carried out investigation pursuant to which charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and cognizance was also taken for the aforesaid charge.

Impugning the cognizance order, the petitioner approached the High Court. After taking note of the entire factual gamut, the Court posed a question to itself as to whether the petitioner can be held liable for abetment of suicide of the deceased girl only because he rejected to marry her subsequent to the ring ceremony.

To such answer such question, the Bench examined various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and observed that it was expected from the petitioner to be very clear about his stand in the relationship and if he did not wish to marry the deceased, he should have conveyed the same to her at the very first instance without any caveats. Getting himself engaged with reluctancy to marry the deceased was even worse.

At the same time, it held that every relationship carries heavy emotional burden and feelings and hence, in these matters, rationality and objectivity take a backseat. Therefore, the Court was convinced that though the petitioner was at fault in not having a clear stand about the marriage from the beginning but it was not his criminal intention which culminated in the suicide of the deceased.

Resultantly, while setting aside the order taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding, the Single Bench held as follows:

“…this court feels that act of entering into the engagement with the deceased by the petitioner with reluctancy to marry her alone cannot be made a penal offence, much less under Section 306 IPC. Reluctance to give irrevocable commitment for life-time and to take responsibility cannot culminate into mens rea to commit a criminal offence.”