Fleeing With Minor Is Offence But Subsequent Marriage Would Outweigh Need For Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court
The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by a couple challenging the judgment dismissing an application seeking the quashing of the proceedings in a POCSO case.
While quashing a POCSO case against a man who was booked for running away with a minor girl whom he married later, the Supreme Court has held that fleeing with a minor girl is an offence under law, however, the subsequent development of marriage between the two lovers and the fact that they have been merrily living would outweigh the need to take the alleged offence or the criminal proceedings to their logical end.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by a couple challenging the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court dismissing an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, summoning order and the proceedings in a POCSO case.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice N.V. Anjaria held, “It may be true that fleeing with a girl who is not of marriageable age and who is minor is an offence under law, however, the subsequent development of marriage between the two lovers and the fact that they have been merrily living would outweigh the need to take the alleged offence or the criminal proceedings to their logical end. In the fact situation like one obtained in the present one, continuation of criminal proceedings against appellant No.1 would become harassing and stand as an abuse of process of law.”
Factual Background
The complainant, in the FIR, stated that his daughter whose age was stated to be 17 years, went missing from the house. It was the case of the complainant that he was informed that he saw his daughter going with the first appellant. It was alleged in the FIR that the first appellant enticed the daughter of the complainant and took her away. The Competent Court took cognizance and the first appellant was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 368, 376(2)(d) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as under Sections 5(8) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The first appellant filed an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to get the criminal proceedings quashed but the same was dismissed. The first and second appellants thus approached the Apex Court challenging the judgment of the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the fact that both the appellants are presently a married couple. “Both, out of their own wish and volition tied matrimonial knot as per the rites of their religion. Both belong to the same religion. The appeal before this Court came to be filed by both of them jointly seeking to quash the criminal proceedings which were initiated at the instance of respondent No.2-father of appellant No.2. It is also not disputed that the parties have been happily residing at their matrimonial home…”, it added
The Bench further noted that a child was born out of wedlock. One of the arguments raised by the complainant was that at the time of the incident, when the appellant ran away with the second appellant, she was a minor and was not of marriageable age. On this aspect, the Bench mentioned, “Whether appellant No.2 was minor of the age little less than the marriageable, whether appellant No.1 lured appellant No.2 and made her eloped with him and whether the conduct on the part of appellant No.1 was in the nature of offence alleged against him or not, are the questions which all pale into insignificance.”
The Bench also noticed that the parties voluntarily got married and started living together to lead their married life without any complaint. When the FIR was filed by the father of the second appellant, both the appellants had already married according to their own will and they are now major.
“For appellant No.1 as well as appellant No.2, negotiating the criminal proceedings in a court of law, notwithstanding that both are now husband and wife living together, would operate as painful interference in their happy life”, the Bench stated while allowing the appeal and quashing the proceedings against the first appellant.
“Since it was stated that the appellants have been staying happily and peacefully and that appellant No.1 is taking good care of appellant No.2, this Court does not impose any condition on appellant No.1 hoping earnestly that he and his family members would continue to extend due care and affection to appellant No.2”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Ayyub Malik v. State of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 331)