Love relationship not a ‘license’ for rape: Gauhati HC in POCSO case

Staff Reporter

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has emphasized that although marital rape is not criminalised in India, a romantic relationship does not grant a man the “license” to coerce sexual relations with a woman. The Court refused to quash a rape case involving a minor, notwithstanding a compromise reached between the accused and the survivor’s family.

Justice Pranjal Das, while hearing a criminal petition (Crl.Pet./1608/2025), observed that serious offences such as rape, particularly those involving minors under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, cannot be treated as private disputes amenable to settlement.

“Even if a man and a woman are in a relationship; that would certainly not give a license to the man to commit rape upon the girl. Though marital rape is still not criminalized in the country, but even in a premarital love relationship between a man and a woman; committing a forceful physical relationship upon her against her wish would still be a criminal act,” the court observed.

Upon examining the evidence, the Court found that while the survivor acknowledged a romantic relationship with the accused, she consistently denied any consensual physical relationship. The Court further noted that the existence of a relationship cannot be equated with consent, especially when the survivor’s statements allege that force was used.

The victim was around 17 years old at the time of the incident, thereby invoking the provisions of the POCSO Act. A critical aspect of the Court’s reasoning was that the compromise was entered into between the accused and the victim’s father, not the victim herself, who is now an adult. The survivor’s independent consent or objection is paramount, and there was no evidence to suggest her support for the compromise. Her earlier statements consistently supported the prosecution’s case, significantly weakening the petitioner’s argument for quashing the proceedings.

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged at Fakirgram police station on February 1, 2025, based on a complaint by the survivor’s father. The complaint alleged that on January 29, 2025, at approximately 4 p.m., the accused entered their residence in the absence of family members and raped his minor daughter. The accused allegedly fled the scene after threatening the victim not to disclose the incident. The father reported noticing his daughter’s torn clothing later that evening, corroborating the allegation of sexual assault.

Following investigation, the police filed a charge sheet on April 30, 2025, under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including offences relating to rape, criminal intimidation, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The accused petitioned the HC to quash the criminal proceedings, relying heavily on subsequent developments after the FIR. His principal argument was that he was in a consensual romantic relationship with the survivor at the time of the alleged offence. The survivor has since attained majority, and a compromise deed dated May 30, 2025, was executed between the accused and the victim’s father, with both families purportedly resolving their differences and the couple intending to marry.

The victim’s father also filed an affidavit supporting the accused’s plea, stating that he had no objection to quashing the proceedings and alleging that the FIR was lodged under external influence from members of an organisation.

The state opposed the petition, emphasising that the allegations disclosed a grave offence that could not be nullified through compromise. The prosecution highlighted that the survivor consistently alleged rape in her statements before the magistrate and during the investigation, with no indication of consent. The offences invoked, including rape and POCSO violations, are serious crimes with significant societal implications and cannot be treated as private disputes.

The Court distinguished several precedents cited by the petitioner, noting that in some cases the relationship was found to be consensual based on facts, while in others, proceedings were not quashed outright but proceeded to trial. The Court reiterated that in POCSO cases, it has consistently exercised restraint in quashing proceedings, and therefore, the cited judgements did not support the petitioner’s case.

Concluding that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify quashing, the court held that exercising inherent powers in such a case would contravene the intent of criminal law. It ruled that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case of rape, supported by the victim’s statements, and that the compromise did not outweigh the seriousness of the offence. Accordingly, the criminal petition was dismissed.

Also Read: Guwahati Police conducts POCSO training for investigating officers