MUMBAI: Refusing to quash a criminal case against a man who sexually assaulted a minor in 2018 and married her in May this year, Bombay HC considered that in the intervening period from the date of closing the matter for passing of judgment, the accused backtracked from performing his lawful duties.
Justices Ajey Gadkari and Rajesh Patil , in the Sept 24 judgment, said, “The wisdom of performing marriage prevailed upon the petitioner only when the criminal case is ripe for hearing and not prior to it.”
The FIR stated the man, in Oct 2018, called the minor to a party, spiked her drink and forcibly had physical relations with her. His advocate Arjun Kadam said they married on May 5, 2025, executed consent terms on May 12, and the survivor consented for quashing the case. Prosecutor Ajay Patil submitted the Supreme Court ’s decision that proceedings under the Pocso Act cannot be quashed even if the survivor, after attaining majority, consents.
Justices Ajey Gadkari and Rajesh Patil , in the Sept 24 judgment, said, “The wisdom of performing marriage prevailed upon the petitioner only when the criminal case is ripe for hearing and not prior to it.”
The FIR stated the man, in Oct 2018, called the minor to a party, spiked her drink and forcibly had physical relations with her. His advocate Arjun Kadam said they married on May 5, 2025, executed consent terms on May 12, and the survivor consented for quashing the case. Prosecutor Ajay Patil submitted the Supreme Court ’s decision that proceedings under the Pocso Act cannot be quashed even if the survivor, after attaining majority, consents.
You may also like
'I'm a travel expert - one destination wowed me and it isn't full of tourists'
These 6 pictures of Kanya Pujan will delight you; CM Yogi Adityanath served food and took blessings from a 6-month-old girl
Wildlife advocate and primate expert Jane Goodall dies at 91
White House freezes funds for Democratic states in shutdown slap
Streetwear Brands That Are Owning Instagram Right Now
