Category Archives: criminal justice

Bombay HC: Minor’s Consent Or Marriage With Family Approval No Ground To Quash POCSO Case

**Mumbai: Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench Upholds POCSO Act in Minor Marriage Case**

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that neither a love affair between a minor girl and an adult man, nor their families’ consent to marriage followed by the birth of a child, can be grounds to quash criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

### Plea to Quash FIR Rejected

A bench comprising Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nandesh Deshpande dismissed a plea filed by a 29-year-old man and his parents seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against them under the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

### Details of the Marriage

According to the prosecution, the man married the minor girl on June 2, 2024, as per Muslim rites, with the consent of both families. At the time of the marriage, the girl was below 18 years of age and subsequently gave birth to a child while still a minor.

### Court Observations

The bench noted, “Though she states that the said marriage was as per Muslim rites and religion, at the time of marriage, she was below 18 years of age. When she delivered the child, she was also below 18 years old.”

### Accused Fully Aware of the Minor’s Age

The court observed that the accused, who was 27 years old at the time of the marriage and is now 29, was fully aware of the girl’s minor status. The judges stated, “At least, he ought to have understood that he should wait till the girl attains 18 years of age. Then, in spite of having knowledge that the girl is a minor, when he takes her away from the legal custody of her parents, from that point itself he commits the offence. Merely because now the girl has given birth to the child, we are of the opinion that the acts of the applicants cannot be brushed aside.”

### Reference to Supreme Court PIL on Age of Consent

The bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s ongoing suo motu public interest litigation regarding the “Right to Privacy of Adolescents.” In this case, the Union Government has categorically opposed reducing the age of consent.

In its affidavit, the Centre maintained that lowering the age “would disturb the very purpose for which the POCSO Act was enacted” and would reintroduce the mischief the law seeks to prevent.

### Legal Standing and Court’s Conclusion

The bench remarked, “As the consent of the minor is irrelevant and the stand taken by the Central Government before the Apex Court also shows that it would be against the mandate of the Constitution of India, as law is not for individuals but for society at large.”

Holding that justice must be administered according to law, the court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

“We, therefore, do not find this to be a fit case… The application stands rejected,” the judges ruled.

For more details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai and surrounding regions, visit: [https://budgetproperties.in/](https://budgetproperties.in/)
https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/bombay-hc-minors-consent-or-marriage-with-family-approval-no-ground-to-quash-pocso-case

Sessions Court Acquits Filmmaker Ram Gopal Verma In Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement In Lok Adalat

**Sessions Court Acquits Filmmaker Ram Gopal Verma in Cheque Bouncing Case**

The sessions court recently acquitted filmmaker Ram Gopal Verma, who was found guilty of cheque bouncing. The acquittal came after Verma and the complainant reached a settlement before the Lok Adalat.

### Background of the Case

Ram Gopal Verma was initially convicted by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in Andheri, Y P Pujari, on January 21, under the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque bouncing. He was sentenced to three months in jail and was directed to pay Rs 3,72,219 to the complainant within three months.

The complaint was filed in 2018 by a partnership firm named Shree, through one of its partners, Mahesh Chandra Mishra. The firm, engaged in the business of providing hard disks for several years, had supplied a hard disk to Verma’s company between February and March 2018. For this, the complainant raised a bill of Rs 2,38,220.

When the complainant deposited a cheque given by Verma on June 1, 2018, it bounced due to insufficient funds. Upon approaching Verma, the complainant received another cheque which also bounced, with the reasons cited as “payment stopped by drawer” and “outgoing clearing charges.”

As a result, the complainant filed a criminal complaint for cheque bouncing at the Magistrate Court in Andheri.

### Legal Proceedings

Verma denied the allegations, claiming that the cheque did not bear his signature and was not issued by him. However, the magistrate rejected his defense, stating, “It did not find any material brought by the accused to show the probable defence.”

Following his conviction, Verma’s lawyer challenged the verdict in the sessions court in February. During the appeal, both parties submitted a joint statement on July 29 indicating their intention to settle the dispute before the Lok Adalat.

Hearing this, the sessions court adjourned the matter to provide an opportunity for an amicable settlement. After the dispute was resolved, the parties filed a memo of settlement.

### Court Decision

Accepting the settlement, the sessions court acquitted Ram Gopal Verma. This marks the conclusion of the cheque bouncing case against the filmmaker.
https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/sessions-court-acquits-filmmaker-ram-gopal-verma-in-cheque-bounce-case-after-settlement-in-lok-adalat