- The Delhi High Court was hearing a plea seeking to rescind an FIR filed under sections 376 (Rape) and 506(Punishent for Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of POCSO Act as well as the charge sheet filed under section 376, 506, 406 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of POCSO Act and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the Trial Court.
- The victim was a child of age 16 years and 5 months, on the day of the first incident which had occurred on January 1st, 2022.
- Allegedly, the petitioner had visited the victim’s house and had proposed to be married to her. The parents had agreed on the condition that it will only be followed through on the completion of her class XII.
- Thereafter, it was alleged that the victim’s father gave 10 lacs to the petitioner by selling his house and taking out a loan with interest. He also gave him a silver chain, 1 lac rupees and several other gifts at the time of engagement of the petitioner with the victim.
- It was further stated in the FIR that the petitioner had physical relationships with the victim on two occasions post their engagement.
- Further, it was alleged that the petitioner refused to get married to her and even abused her as well as her parents.
- On behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted that he never refused to marry the victim and is still ready and willing to marry her.
- It was contended by the petitioner that section 6 of the POCSO Act will not be applicable to the victims situation as she has attained puberty and is now a major, according to Muslim Personal Law.
- On the other hand, it was argued by the state that the POCSO Act will be applicable as it is age specific and not religion specific. The state further iterated that the purpose of the Act is to prevent children from sexual crimes.
- The Delhi High Court held that the POCSO Act ensures that children are not sexually abused and has rejected the contention that a minor muslim girl who has attained puberty would fall out of its purview. Hon’ble Justice Jasmeet Singh said "It is not customary law specific but the aim of the Act is to protect children below the age of 18 years from sexual abuse."
- Adding to this statement, the court further said "As regards the other arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, I am of the view that the same are in the nature of defense and can only be proved/disproved after trial.”
"Loved reading this piece by Mahi Manchanda ?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
