The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the consent of a minor is legally irrelevant, irrespective of the duration or nature of the relationship with the accused. This ruling underscores the absolute protection afforded to minors under the POCSO Act, even where allegations involve a long-standing intimate relationship.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Harun S/o Gousmoddin Attar, a 28-year-old businessman, is accused of committing sexual offences against Sajidabegum D/o Peersab Nadaf, a 26-year-old student, under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The alleged offences occurred between 2017 and 2025, during which the complainant was a minor until she turned 18 in 2020. The complaint was lodged on 07.10.2025, nearly nine years after the first alleged incident on 03.03.2017.
Key Facts
- The complainant and petitioner were in a consensual romantic and sexual relationship from approximately 2017 to 2025.
- The complainant was 16 - 17 years old during the initial alleged acts of sexual intercourse.
- The complainant disclosed the relationship to a doctor on 07.10.2025, stating she had been in physical and sexual relations with the petitioner since 2016 and that he had refused to marry her for the past year.
- She deposed before the Magistrate that the petitioner had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her 3 - 4 times when she was a minor.
- A panchanama of the alleged location of intercourse was prepared by police at the complainant’s instance.
- The complainant’s statement was recorded in writing by the police and later reaffirmed before the doctor and Magistrate.
- The petitioner filed an application under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking discharge, arguing the relationship was consensual and the delay in complaint undermined its credibility.
Procedural History
- 03.03.2017: Alleged first incident of sexual intercourse (complainant aged 16)
- 07.10.2025: FIR registered at Vijayapura Women Police Station as Crime No. 140/2025
- 12.01.2026: Petitioner filed application under Section 250 BNSS for discharge
- 18.02.2026: Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court-I, Vijayapura, dismissed discharge application
- 12.03.2026: Criminal Revision Petition filed before Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) admission of the revision petition; (2) setting aside the order dated 18.02.2026; and (3) discharge from all charges under POCSO Act and IPC, on grounds of consensual relationship and excessive delay.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits discharge of an accused in a POCSO case where the alleged sexual act occurred during the victim’s minority, despite claims of prolonged consensual relationship and delayed complaint.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the relationship was voluntary and consensual over nine years, with no evidence of force, threat, or false promise of marriage. The delay of nearly nine years in lodging the complaint, they contended, rendered the allegations suspect and indicative of malice. They relied on Rahul Varma v. State of NCT of Delhi to argue that where consent is established, the case should not proceed to trial. They asserted that the prosecution’s case was built on groundless materials and amounted to an abuse of process.
For the Respondent/State
The High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition, emphasizing the mandatory protection under the POCSO Act. They argued that the complainant’s statements before the doctor and Magistrate, along with the panchanama, established prima facie evidence that the acts occurred during her minority. Under the POCSO Act, consent of a minor is legally void, and the issue of delay must be addressed at trial, not at the discharge stage.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Trial Court’s reasoning, particularly paragraphs 12 to 18 of the impugned order, which correctly applied the threshold for discharge under Section 250 BNSS. The Court noted that at this stage, the court must not conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the credibility of evidence, but only determine whether there is sufficient material to proceed.
"Moreover the acts if done during minority, the consent of minor would be inconsequential. Whether the act was on false promise of marriage and during her minority has to be established by full fledged trial. The decision in Rahul Varma is not applicable at this stage as a mini trial cannot be held."
The Court held that the complainant’s admission of sexual relations during her minority, even if consensual, triggers the strict protections of the POCSO Act. The principle of consent being legally irrelevant for minors is non-negotiable under the statute. The delay in complaint, while relevant for trial, cannot be grounds for discharge at the preliminary stage. The Court distinguished Rahul Varma, noting that case involved a consensual relationship between adults, whereas here, the victim was a minor at the time of the acts.
The Court further affirmed that the panchanama and written statements of the victim, even if self-recorded, constitute prima facie evidence sufficient to proceed to trial. The Trial Court’s refusal to discharge was legally sound and based on settled jurisprudence.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the order dated 18.02.2026 dismissing the discharge application under Section 250 BNSS. The case shall proceed to trial. The Court affirmed that the prosecution’s prima facie case, including the victim’s statements and the timing of the acts during her minority, is sufficient to warrant trial. No monetary relief or interim direction was granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent of a Minor Is Legally Meaningless
- Practitioners must not argue that prolonged consensual relationships negate POCSO charges if the acts occurred before the victim turned 18.
- Even if the victim later consents to the relationship or delays reporting, the law treats the act as non-consensual by definition.
Delay Alone Cannot Justify Discharge at Preliminary Stage
- Delay in lodging a complaint is a factor for trial court to assess during evidence, not for discharge under Section 250 BNSS.
- Courts must not substitute their judgment on credibility at the discharge stage.
Section 250 BNSS Requires Minimal Threshold
- Only if no prima facie case exists - no statement, no medical evidence, no corroboration - can discharge be granted.
- In POCSO cases, any admission by the victim of sexual contact during minority is sufficient to proceed.
