POCSO Victim And Accused Marrying Other People And Living Happily Not Grounds To Dismiss FIR: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court held recently that an FIR filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) cannot be quashed just because the survivor and accused married different people and are now living happily.

According to Judge Shampa Dutt (Paul), the accused and survivor marrying other people does not reduce the violation under the POCSO Act.

“Considering the prima facie elements on record, the fact that they (applicant accused and victim) are married to other people does not reduce the offence alleged,” the judge noted.

As a result, it denied a petition filed by one Bhuban Basak to vacate proceedings commenced against him for rape under the Indian Criminal Code (IPC) and relevant sections of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution case was that the accused, who was 22-years-old in January 2016, had a brief ‘love affair’ with the victim, who was just 14 at the time. He brought her to numerous locations.

The accused forcibly entered and raped the victim while she was alone in her home on the day of the incident. When she cried out, he applied vermilion (sindoor) on her head and convinced her that they were now married. He then fled from the scene. When her parents arrived home, she told them about the incident, and an FIR was filed against him.

The accused moved the Court, arguing that because both the survivor and he are happily married to other people, the case should be dismissed.

The Court stated that the medical reports and survivor’s statements were against the accused. According to the judge, the evidence on file is adequate for the case to proceed to trial.

“Thus, based on the materials on record, including the medical report, the victim’s age, and the statements on record, there appears to be a prima facie case against the petitioner of committing a cognizable offence, and quashing the proceedings at this stage would amount to an abuse of the legal process or the court,” the Court ruled.

As a result, the petition was dismissed.