The Kerala High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of repeatedly raping a 17-year-old girl, holding that an alleged marriage under Muslim personal law cannot shield an accused from prosecution under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian passed the order, while dismissing the accused’s plea claiming that the minor was his legally wedded wife and that their marriage had been solemnised according to Muslim religious rites.

The accused faced charges under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. He argued that he had married the girl on July 23, 2021, when she was 17 years and one month old, in the presence of members of both families.

The Court rejected the argument insofar as the POCSO charges were concerned, observing that the law protects every person below 18 years of age, irrespective of whether the child is married.

“Even assuming for the sake of argument that a marriage was solemnized as per Muslim religious rites and ceremonies, the same will not salvage the petitioner's criminal liability,” the Court observed.

The Bench referred to Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act, which defines a child as a person below 18 years of age. It held that sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 attracts the provisions of the POCSO Act, and whether she is the wife of the accused is of little consequence.

The prosecution alleged that the accused took the minor to his residence on October 23, 2021, where he allegedly raped her repeatedly over the following four days. It was further alleged that his parents facilitated the offence.

The accused claimed that the alleged marriage had taken place before the incident. However, the High Court noted that there was no documentary evidence establishing that the marriage had actually been solemnised. It said the question of the marriage’s validity would have to be determined during the trial.

Finding that the allegations and materials on record prima facie disclosed the offences under the POCSO Act, the High Court declined to interfere with the FIR, final report or subsequent criminal proceedings and dismissed the plea.

The case was argued by Advocates Sunny Matthew and Anooj J for the accused, Advocate P Jayaram for the minor victim, and Senior Public Prosecutor Navas VA for the State.