POCSO Act & Teenage Love: Why Madras HC Quashed Case Against Man Impregnating 17-year-old

The bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose, as the relationship was consensual, the parties had since married, and the offences alleged were personal rather than crimes against society.

An FIR was registered at the All Women Police Station, Perambalur in 2023, under Sections 5(1), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution had alleged that the petitioner, Kamaraj, developed a love affair with a 17-year-old girl and committed penetrative sexual assault on several occasions, leading to her pregnancy.

However, in 2025, the petitioner, the victim girl, and her mother jointly filed a compromise memo before the court, stating that the petitioner and the victim had married and were now living peacefully with their infant daughter. Both the victim and her mother appeared before the court and confirmed the marriage, expressing their unwillingness to pursue the criminal case any further.

While the State opposed unconditional quashing on the ground that offences under the POCSO Act are of a serious nature, Justice Sathish Kumar observed that each case must be viewed in light of its specific facts, particularly when the alleged victim and accused are close in age and have since formalised their relationship.

Court referred extensively to the 2019 judgment in Sabari v. Inspector of Police [(2019) 3 MLJ (Crl) 110], where a single judge bench of the high court discussed how teenage relationships between individuals aged 16 to 18 often end up attracting the severe provisions of the POCSO Act, sometimes leading to “unintended criminalisation” of youthful love. The Sabari judgment had even suggested that the statutory definition of a “child” under Section 2(d) of the Act could be reconsidered reducing the age from 18 to 16 for the purposes of consensual relationships to prevent the law from punishing what are essentially innocent adolescent affairs.

Justice Sathish Kumar quoted the observations in Sabari, which had noted that teenage relationships “cannot be construed as unnatural or alien” and that such relationships are often a product of “mutual innocence and biological attraction.” He also cited another decision of the Madras High Court in Vijayalakshmi and Another v. State (Crl OP No. 232 of 2021), which took a similar view in quashing a case involving consenting adolescents who later married.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai vs State of Gujarat [(2017) 9 SCC 641] and State of Madhya Pradesh vs Dhruv Gurjar [(2019) 2 MLJ (Crl) 10], court reiterated that while exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC, the court must consider whether the offence is purely personal in nature or one affecting public interest. Crimes with a broader societal impact, the Supreme Court had held, cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.

Applying that test, Justice Sathish Kumar concluded that the offences alleged were personal in nature, affecting only the petitioner, the victim, and their families.

“It involves the future of two young persons who are still in their early twenties,” he observed, adding that quashing the proceedings would not affect any overriding public interest but would instead allow the couple to “settle down in their life and look for better future prospects.”

Court also noted that incidents of this nature continue to occur in villages and towns, where adolescent relationships often lead to criminal cases under the POCSO Act. The judge expressed that keeping such cases pending would only increase the mental agony of both families without serving any real public purpose.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal original petition and quashed the FIR registered by the Perambalur All Women Police Station. The joint compromise memo dated October 9, 2025, was ordered to form part of the record.

Case Title: Kamaraj vs State and Others

Order Date: October 16, 2025

Bench: Justice N. Sathish Kumar