The SC uses special powers to quash POCSO convictions and let the couple live “quietly” as husband and wife

The Supreme Court said that the order was passed in the special circumstances of the case and would not be taken as a precedent for any other purpose. File | Photo credit: PTI

The Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the conviction of a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenders Act (POCSO) 2012, saying his victim had married him when she came of age. The court noted that the couple should now be allowed to live “quietly in society as husband and wife”.

Arguing in court is like playing a test match, while appeals are like IPL: Madras High Court matches

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to do “complete justice” in situations where the law cannot provide adequate redress. The provision allows the court to shape the relief in a manner adapted to the particular facts and circumstances of the case.

The man and woman in this case fell in love when she was still a minor and studying in class 12. According to case records, she filed a complaint after he refused to marry her. This culminated in his conviction by a Haruru court in 2019 for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and a fine for having physical relations with a minor.

Appeal to SC

The couple later reconciled, got married and started living together. Subsequently, a petition was filed in the Madras High Court to have the conviction set aside. However, the High Court rejected the application and also rejected the woman’s plea for permission to record further evidence and depose in support of the convict.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, the convict approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the conviction. He said the criminal case arose out of a “misunderstanding” and that they had been in a relationship since 2012. The court was also informed that they were now living together as husband and wife and sought his intervention to “quiet the litigation”.

Victim’s request

Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar personally interacted with the victim through video call to ascertain her stand, during which she said she had no objection to quash the conviction. The victim also informed the court that she wished to receive ₹100,000 from the appellant “for the security of her life” after which she no longer wished to pursue the litigation. The appellant subsequently deposited the amount in court.

The State Government also informed the committee that in order to preserve the social structure and enable the couple to lead a peaceful domestic life, it had no objection to the conviction being set aside.

Accordingly, the judges concluded that in view of the couple’s reconciliation and the victim’s wish to continue married life with the appellant, justice would be served by quashing the conviction.

“…the petitioner and the victim entered into their marriage after she had attained the age of majority and cohabited. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case and having regard to the special facts and circumstances, we find it appropriate to exercise our plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence,” observed the appellant, the annulment court, the appellant, and.

“There is no precedent”

However, the Bench clarified that the relief was granted due to the peculiar facts of this case and would not operate as a precedent.

“The appellant and the victim can live their lives peacefully in society as husband and wife. We make it clear that this order was passed in the peculiar circumstances of the case, therefore it will not be treated as a precedent for any other purpose,” it added.

Published – 10 Jun 2026 14:38 IST