{"id":4231,"date":"2026-02-04T17:46:39","date_gmt":"2026-02-04T12:16:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=4231"},"modified":"2026-02-04T17:42:57","modified_gmt":"2026-02-04T12:12:57","slug":"consensual-relationship-teens","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/consensual-relationship-teens\/","title":{"rendered":"A Consensual Relationship Between Matured Teens Cannot Be Criminalised: Rajasthan High Court Protects Innocent Boy From Harsh Prosecution Under POCSO And Kidnapping Laws."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Rajasthan High Court protected a 19-year-old boy from prosecution, holding that a consensual relationship with a near-major 17-year-old girl who was with him of her own free will, cannot be criminalised under POCSO or kidnapping laws.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

JAIPUR<\/em>: The Rajasthan High Court<\/a><\/strong>, through Justice Anil Kumar Upman<\/strong>, has quashed an FIR and all criminal proceedings against a 19-year-old boy who was prosecuted under serious provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act<\/a><\/strong>, even though the girl repeatedly stated that no sexual assault had taken place and that she had left her home voluntarily.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case arose from an FIR <\/a>registered at Kaladera, Jaipur Rural, alleging kidnapping and aggravated penetrative sexual assault<\/strong>. Following the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet and the trial court framed charges in a mechanical manner, exposing the young man to the risk of a minimum twenty-year sentence<\/strong>, despite the absence of any supporting evidence.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On examining the record, the High Court noted that the girl had clearly stated that no sexual relationship, whether consensual or otherwise<\/strong>, had occurred between her and the accused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also took note of the medical examination report<\/strong>, which showed no indication of sexual assault<\/strong>. On these facts, the Court found that the basic ingredients of the alleged offences were missing and that the criminal law had been wrongly set in motion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Expressing serious concern over the police action, the Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIt is incomprehensible for this Court as to how the investigating agency, in the face of an uncorroborated medical report and a categorical denial by the victim herself, could arrive at a conclusion of filing a charge-sheet with the offence punishable under Section 3\/4 of the POCSO Act.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The High Court also criticised the trial court for failing to act as a judicial safeguard, reiterating settled law that a court cannot act as \u201ca mere post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution.\u201d<\/strong> It held that charges were framed \u201cfor a crime that has not been alleged or is supported by a single piece of evidence.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While dealing with the kidnapping charge, the Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras<\/em><\/strong>, quoting that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThere is a distinction between \u2018taking\u2019 and allowing a minor to accompany a person.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The judgment further reproduced that where a minor left her father’s protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing voluntarily joins the accused person<\/strong>, the offence of kidnapping is not made out<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Applying this principle, the Court held that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe petitioner did not \u2018take\u2019 her; he merely provided company to a young girl who had already decided to leave her home.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Court emphasised that the girl was<\/strong> 17 years old, close to majority<\/strong>, pursuing higher studies, and capable of understanding her actions<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It clarified that POCSO<\/strong> was enacted to protect children from predators<\/strong>, not \u201cto persecute young adults involved in consensual, albeit socially unaccepted, relationships<\/em>.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Relying on recent Supreme Court observations, the High Court reproduced the warning that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWhen an instrument of such noble and one may even say basic good intent is misused, misapplied and used as a tool for exacting revenge, the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of inversion.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

It also reproduced the guiding principles requiring courts to \u201cassess the context,\u201d \u201cconsider victim\u2019s statement,\u201d \u201cavoid perversity of justice,\u201d and exercise \u201cjudicial discretion.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Drawing parallels with other criminal laws, the Court noted that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThis chasm between access and abuse is also mirrored in the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961<\/a>,\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

and reminded lawyers of their ethical duty, stating that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe responsibility of the advocate is profound \u2013 to examine the allegations with detachment and necessary discretion and to counsel restraint when grievance masks vengeance.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In a broader reflection, the Court discussed the rise of so-called Romeo-Juliet cases<\/strong>, warning that rigid age-of-consent laws create \u201cstatutory victims\u201d<\/strong> and lead to \u201cState-sponsored harassment\u201d<\/strong> rather than genuine child protection. It cautioned that such prosecutions end up \u201ccriminalizing teenage love\u201d<\/strong> and destroying young lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the Rajasthan High Court stepped in to prevent a clear miscarriage of justice by invoking its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS<\/strong>. The Court found that the prosecution was built on assumptions rather than evidence, that the core ingredients of the alleged offences were completely missing<\/strong>, and that continuing the criminal proceedings would only result in harassment of a young man.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By quashing the FIR and all related proceedings, the Court reaffirmed that criminal law cannot be allowed to be misused to settle social or familial disapproval<\/strong> and that the justice system must protect individuals from mechanical and vindictive prosecutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Explanatory Table \u2013 Laws & Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law & Section<\/strong><\/td>What the Section Deals With<\/strong><\/td>How the Court Viewed Its Use in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead>
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 \u2013 Section 137(2)<\/strong><\/td>Kidnapping \/ abduction of a minor<\/td>Held not applicable as the girl left home voluntarily; no inducement or \u201ctaking\u201d by the accused<\/td><\/tr>
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 \u2013 Section 96<\/strong><\/td>Sexual offence related provision<\/td>No allegation or evidence of any sexual act; essential ingredients absent<\/td><\/tr>
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 \u2013 Section 64(2)(m)<\/strong><\/td>Aggravated sexual offence<\/td>Charges framed mechanically without factual foundation<\/td><\/tr>
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 \u2013 Section 87<\/strong><\/td>Associated offence provision<\/td>Automatically failed once core offences were not made out<\/td><\/tr>
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 \u2013 Section 528<\/strong><\/td>Inherent powers of High Court (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC)<\/td>Used to quash FIR and proceedings to prevent abuse of process<\/td><\/tr>
POCSO Act, 2012 \u2013 Sections 3 & 4<\/strong><\/td>Penetrative sexual assault<\/td>No medical or testimonial evidence; wrongly invoked<\/td><\/tr>
POCSO Act, 2012 \u2013 Section 5(l)<\/strong><\/td>Aggravated penetrative sexual assault<\/td>Court found inclusion shocking and unjustified<\/td><\/tr>
POCSO Act, 2012 \u2013 Section 6<\/strong><\/td>Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault (minimum 20 years)<\/td>Grossly disproportionate and misapplied in absence of any offence<\/td><\/tr>
BNSS \u2013 Sections 180 & 183<\/strong><\/td>Victim statements before police and magistrate<\/td>Victim consistently denied sexual assault or coercion<\/td><\/tr>
IPC \u2013 Section 361 (via precedent)<\/strong><\/td>Kidnapping from lawful guardianship<\/td>Not attracted as per settled Supreme Court law<\/td><\/tr>
Supreme Court \u2013 S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras<\/strong><\/td>Distinction between \u201ctaking\u201d and \u201caccompanying\u201d<\/td>Directly applied to reject kidnapping charge<\/td><\/tr>
Supreme Court \u2013 Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra<\/strong><\/td>Duty of courts at stage of framing charge<\/td>Trial court criticised for acting as a post office<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n