Delhi HC refuses to quash sexual assault case against man who later married minor girl
Mangalore Today News Network
New Delhi, Nov 14, 2026: The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a sexual assault case against a man who married a minor girl, observing that her desire to continue living with him does not erase his criminal liability for offences allegedly committed when she was below 18.
The court emphasised that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act provides special protection to children against sexual abuse and exploitation, irrespective of whether the minor consented to the relationship.
"Parliament has deliberately fixed an age (18 years) below which consent to sexual activity has no legal efficacy. The protection does not depend upon proof of force, coercion or deception, or upon an assessment of whether the particular child was sufficiently mature to understand the relationship," Justice Sanjeev Narula observed in a judgment delivered on November 4.
Referring to a Supreme Court ruling, the High Court reiterated that marriage does not take away the protection that criminal law extends to a child.
The court acknowledged that the girl’s wish to continue living with the petitioner, her mother’s support for the relationship and the welfare of their child had been taken into consideration.
"The court does not doubt the sincerity of their request or overlook the hardship that continuation of the proceedings may entail for the family. Those considerations, however, do not answer the allegations or furnish an independent ground for quashing a prosecution of this nature," the judgment stated.
It further observed that the victim’s wishes and the question of criminal liability for acts allegedly committed during her minority were separate matters in the eyes of law.
The High Court was hearing a petition filed by the man seeking to quash an FIR registered in 2023 for alleged kidnapping and sexual assault under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the POCSO Act.
The plea was based on a settlement between the parties and their subsequent marriage.
According to the FIR, the girl’s mother lodged a complaint in February 2023 stating that her 15-year-old daughter had gone missing. The girl was traced in December 2023 and was found to be pregnant.
In her statement before a magistrate, the girl said she had voluntarily accompanied the man and established physical relations with him of her own will.
The man’s counsel submitted that the couple had married in February 2023 and that a child was born to them in June 2024. The counsel also argued that they were happily living together as a family.
Opposing the petition, the prosecution relied on school records showing that the girl was born on March 15, 2008. She was therefore around 14 years and 10 months old when she left home in February 2023.
The prosecutor argued that the allegations disclosed serious offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act and that the subsequent marriage and settlement could not constitute valid grounds for terminating the criminal proceedings.
The High Court observed that the material on record prima facie established a physical relationship between the man and the minor girl. The petitioner had also acknowledged that he was the father of the child.
"These circumstances provide a substantial prima facie foundation for the allegation of penetrative sexual assault and the aggravated circumstance contemplated under Section 5(j)(ii), punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act," the court observed.
It noted that the POCSO Act defines a child as anyone below 18 years of age and treats penetrative sexual assault resulting in pregnancy as an aggravated offence.
The court further held that humanitarian considerations, including the couple’s marriage and the welfare of their child, could not independently justify quashing criminal proceedings involving serious allegations under the POCSO Act.
However, the High Court left it open to the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court for appropriate relief under Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the apex court to pass orders necessary to ensure complete justice. It clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on whether such relief would be justified in the case.