Karnataka High Court quashes POCSO case against Muslim man for impregnating minor wife

The order was passed by Justice K.Natarajan just two days before another single bench of the High Court declared that POCSO Act overrides personal laws and thus, the age for involving in sexual activities is 18 years.

Karnataka High Court
File photo: Karnataka High Court

November 2, 2022

On October 10 the Karnataka High Court in Mohammad  Waseem  Ahamad & Others v. 1 State by Chandra  Layout Police Station quashed the POCSO case registered against a Muslim man for impregnating his minor wife. The matter was put to rest after a settlement between the accused and the victim, who was married to him as per Islamic Law.

The order was passed by Justice K.Natarajan just two days before another single bench of the High Court declared that POCSO Act overrides personal law and thus, the age for involving in sexual activities is 18 years.

After receiving information from BGS Global hospital that the victim girl visited the hospital for a checkup, she was pregnant and was also a minor, aged around 17 years and 2 months, Chandra Layout police filed a suo moto complaint against the instant petitioner.

The Petitioner argued that as per Islamic law if a girl is aged 15 years and attains puberty, she can perform marriage. Now the victim has attained majority and delivered a child, which is two months old. Both the parties have settled down their issue and therefore, prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.

The bench allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings under Sections 376, 376(2)(N) of IPC, Sections 5(L), 6, and 17 of POCSO Act, and Section 9 and 11 of Child Marriage Restraint Act.

“The joint affidavit of both the parties shows that the parties have settled the issue in dispute. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, continuing to allow criminal proceedings is abuse of  process of law and no purpose would be served if the victim turns hostile during trial and the question of conducting investigation against the petitioners by the investigation officer is a futile exercise…Both the parties are permitted to settle the dispute and compound the offence,” the court concluded.

 

Share with others