Srinagar, Oct 29: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has refused to quash a POCSO charge sheet against a man accused of having a sexual relationship with a minor girl, holding that claims of consensual intimacy and subsequent marriage cannot erase an alleged offence under the law.

Justice Yash Paul Bourney observed that while relationships involving young couples may raise complex social and legal questions, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act clearly treats anyone below 18 as a child. Consent by a minor does not, therefore, negate an offence under the Act.
The case came to light on October 5, 2025, when a doctor informed police that a minor girl had delivered a baby at a hospital. The girl was accompanied by her mother and the accused. Police arrested the man two days later, and the investigation established that he was the newborn’s biological father.
According to the case record, the accused was a distant relative of the girl’s family and frequently visited their home. Their relationship allegedly developed during these visits, resulting in the girl’s pregnancy.
Police filed a charge sheet on December 3, 2025, and the trial court framed charges on September 28, 2026. The girl had yet to testify when the High Court considered the plea to quash the proceedings.
Advocate Zarin Ali, appearing for the girl, argued that the two had fallen in love and married in September 2024. The girl wished to live with the accused and sought his release, maintaining that their relationship was consensual and that the marriage had taken place with her parents’ consent.
She also claimed that her age differed across official records, stating that her vaccination card showed her to be above 18 while her Aadhaar card recorded her age as 16.
The defence argued that the matter came to police attention only after the hospital reported the delivery, rather than through an initial complaint by the girl or her parents.
The government opposed the plea, maintaining that the girl was a minor when the alleged sexual relationship occurred and that her consent had no legal significance under the POCSO Act.
The High Court held that the claimed marriage, the nature of the relationship and the girl’s desire to remain with the accused could not, by themselves, justify quashing the charge sheet. Such circumstances could be considered as mitigating factors at an appropriate stage, including while examining bail, but did not extinguish the alleged offence.
The court also observed that a minor could not independently invoke the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction in the manner adopted in the petition without representation through a guardian.
The ruling highlights the legal distinction between consent within a relationship and consent recognised under criminal law. It also underscores that the prosecution must proceed in accordance with the statutory safeguards provided to children.
The High Court’s decision does not establish the accused’s guilt; it allows the criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court