The legal question of whether a subsequent marriage between the victim and the accused can extinguish proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) has sparked much judicial debate. With increasing cases involving adolescent relationships, courts are often confronted with petitions seeking the quashing of First Information Reports (FIRs) where consensual sexual activity between minors has later culminated in marriage.
In Mirza Aslam Beigh Rashid Beigh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025), the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court examined this sensitive issue in light of statutory protections for minors, social realities of early marriages, and ongoing deliberations before the Supreme Court on decriminalising consensual adolescent relationships. The Court firmly held that a marriage between the victim and the accused cannot nullify proceedings under POCSO if the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident, reiterating that the consent of a minor is legally irrelevant.
Background of the Case
Facts of the Matter
- An FIR (Crime No.196/2025) was registered at Telhara Police Station, Akola, against the accused Mirza Aslam Beigh (aged 29) under:
Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS),
Sections 4(1) and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and
Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
- The complainant, a police constable, reported that the victim had delivered a baby in May 2025. Investigations revealed that her marriage to the accused had been solemnised in June 2024, when she was 17 years old.
- The accused argued that it was a case of consensual adolescent love culminating in marriage, which was legally registered after the girl turned 18. He sought quashing of the FIR to protect the marital bond and the future of the child born from the relationship.
Grounds for Quashing
The petitioners contended:
- The relationship was consensual, arising from a love affair.
- Both families had accepted the marriage, solemnised as per Muslim rites.
- The victim herself raised no objection and supported quashing, claiming no force or coercion.
- Punishment of the husband would cause irreparable hardship to the victim and child.
- Precedents exist where courts have considered adolescent relationships sympathetically.
Issues
The central issues before the Bombay High Court were:
- Whether subsequent marriage and the victim’s consent can justify quashing of POCSO proceedings when the victim was below 18 years at the relevant time?
- Does adolescent love provide an exceptional circumstance under Section 482 CrPC for quashing proceedings?
- What is the role of pending Supreme Court deliberations on adolescent relationships in shaping High Court decisions?
Arguments Presented
Petitioners (Accused and Family)
- Consensual Love: The physical relationship was voluntary and arose from mutual affection.
- Marriage as Validation: The accused and victim are now married, living peacefully, and raising a child.
- Victim’s Support: The victim and her counsel explicitly stated that she was not subjected to force and did not oppose quashing.
Precedents Cited:
- Nauman Suleman Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1148),
- Ankush Pakhale v. State of Maharashtra (APL No.706/2024), and
- Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of U.P. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 614).
These cases highlighted judicial leniency in adolescent love scenarios.
State (Prosecution)
- Age Irrelevance of Consent: The victim was under 18; hence, her consent is immaterial under POCSO.
- Accused’s Age and Knowledge: The accused, being 29, knew the victim’s minority and still engaged in a sexual relationship and marriage.
- Public Policy: Allowing quashing would defeat the purpose of child protection laws.
Victim
- Through counsel, the victim supported the accused, emphasising marital harmony and social acceptance of their relationship.
Court’s Observations
On Adolescent Relationships and POCSO
The Court acknowledged that the Supreme Court in Right to Privacy of Adolescents, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2023 (decided on 23 May 2025) had directed the Union Government to consider decriminalising consensual adolescent relationships and to implement sex education policies. However, the Court noted that final directions were still awaited, and the Union Government had opposed lowering the age of consent, citing risks of exploitation and constitutional mandates.
On Marriage and Consent
Consent Irrelevant: The Court reiterated the settled principle that a minor’s consent is invalid in law [Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala v. State of Gujarat, (2021) 3 SCC 12].
Marriage No Shield: Subsequent marriage cannot legalise an act that was illegal at the time it occurred. The accused’s knowledge of the girl’s minority made his conduct culpable.
Public Interest Prevails: Law serves the larger societal interest, not individual conveniences. The POCSO Act is designed to protect minors irrespective of personal circumstances.
On Social Concerns
The Court highlighted the risks of teenage pregnancies, child marriages, and related health complications, observing that widespread child marriage persists despite legal prohibitions. The protective intent of the law must therefore be upheld strictly.
Key Highlights of the Case
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande stated:
As the consent of the minor is irrelevant and the stand taken by the Central Government before the Hon’ble Apex Court also shows that it would be against the mandate of the Constitution of India, as law is not for the individuals but for society at large.
In the light of the above object behind the enactment of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and considering the victim was minor at the time of marriage, as well as when she was subjected for the physical relationship, we, therefore, do not find this is to be a fit case, where we should exercise our powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by making the case as of exceptional circumstance.
Judgment
The Bench (Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nandesh S. Deshpande) concluded:
- The victim was a minor at the time of marriage and a sexual relationship.
- The accused, being a major, knowingly engaged in prohibited conduct.
- Marriage and the victim’s support cannot extinguish statutory offences under POCSO.
- Pending Supreme Court deliberations cannot alter the binding legal framework until formal directions are issued.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the application for quashing the FIR, holding that this was not an exceptional case warranting the exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS).
Broader Social Implications
Child Marriage Concerns: The judgment reaffirms the illegality of underage marriages, emphasising societal harms beyond the couple’s circumstances.
Adolescent Love Dilemma: The Court recognised the ongoing national debate on adolescent consensual sex but stressed that until reforms occur, courts must enforce existing law.
Future Uncertainty: Should the Supreme Court or Parliament revisit the age of consent, such cases may be viewed differently. For now, however, marriage is no defence to POCSO offences.
Conclusion
Bombay High Court’s decision in Mirza Aslam Beigh Rashid Beigh v. State of Maharashtra reaffirms that marriage between the victim and the accused does not nullify proceedings under POCSO if the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. Consent of a minor is immaterial, and marriage cannot retrospectively validate an unlawful act.
This judgment emphasises the protective object of POCSO and signals that courts must prioritise societal and constitutional interests over individual equities, at least until legislative reforms arrive. It also highlights the importance of ongoing deliberations at the Supreme Court regarding adolescent relationships, which may shape future jurisprudence.
For now, the ruling serves as a clear reminder: child protection laws cannot be circumvented by marriage or the victim’s support once an offence under POCSO is established.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams