Bombay HC Quashes POCSO Charges Over Six-Year Delay in FIR, Says Abuse Of Process Of Law

Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court recently quashed a chargesheet against a Chandrapur man accused under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), ruling that a six-year delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) rendered the prosecution unsustainable and terming it as an abuse of the process of law.The case stemmed from allegations that the accused engaged in a sexual relationship with the complainant in 2016, when she was 16, on the pretext of marriage. However, the FIR was registered only on March 11, 2022, at Padoli police station, Chandrapur."Considering Supreme Court's observations, we are of the considered view that there is no evidence or material to attract POCSO Act's Sections 4 and 6 and IPC sections of rape," a division bench of Justices Anil Pansare and Mahendra Nerlikar observed.The accused had petitioned to quash various charges under Indian Penal Code, alongside POCSO provisions. His counsel, Amol Hunge, argued the complaint was an afterthought, intended to invoke POCSO retrospectively. He told the court the relationship continued consensually even after the complainant reached adulthood, and the accused later married another woman in 2019 and fathered a child.Additional public prosecutor N H Joshi and complainant's counsel A A Dhawas countered that the accused exploited a minor's lack of understanding, luring her with a false promise of marriage. The judges rejected those claims, pointing out that the chargesheet even invoked offences of kidnapping and abduction without supporting the charges. "We are surprised the chargesheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366…as absolutely there are no allegations of kidnapping, abducting or inducing women to compel her marriage," the bench said.The court noted that beyond the FIR itself, there was no corroborating evidence — medical, forensic or testimonial — to substantiate rape allegations dating back to 2016. It further observed that threats alleged by the complainant were uncorroborated and inconsistent with her continued association with the accused.Citing Supreme Court rulings, including Kunal Chatterjee versus State of West Bengal, the bench reiterated that consensual relationships on a promise of marriage do not constitute rape unless coercion or deceit is proven. It added that "inordinate delay" in lodging an FIR undermines the prosecution's credibility.Concluding that the case lacked both timeliness and evidentiary support, the judges held the charges to be "an abuse of process of law" and ordered the proceedings quashed.