Overview
- The Delhi High Court held that courts cannot craft a judge‑made exception for near‑majority relationships under POCSO, where consent of a person under 18 has no legal relevance.
- Justice Sanjeev Narula declined to quash a 2023 FIR despite the complainant now being an adult living with the accused as his wife and having a child, citing deterrent aims and the risk of appearing to endorse underage marriages.
- The Allahabad High Court quashed a 2016–2017 POCSO/IPC case after noting the accused and prosecutrix married years ago, have a child, and reached a settlement through the High Court’s mediation centre.
- Justice Vivek Kumar Singh reasoned that the “criminality… now stands washed off,” distinguished a 2024 Supreme Court ruling against compromise in POCSO, and relied on precedents where proceedings were quashed following marriage.
- The Allahabad order also recorded a medical report placing the victim at about 18 at the time, while the contrasting Delhi ruling underscores divergent judicial approaches to adolescent relationships under POCSO.