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 know, you know…
I asked 4 chefs the secret to making tastier rice - they all named one key step
Amid shutdown, Trump blocks funding for Democrat-run Chicago
The Glen Grant Raises A Toast With Rare 65-Year-Old Single Malt
Tarot Card Readings: Here's What The Cards Suggest From October 4 To October 17 For All Zodiac Signs
