Case Name: ARYAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Petition Number: Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 88/2026
Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:3628
Date of Judgement: 12.01.2026
Hon’ble Judge/Coram: JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Background:
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) was enacted to protect children from sexual predators. However, over the past few years, there has been a rapid rise in the number of cases where the Act is being used to persecute young people involved in consensual romantic relationships. These “Romeo–Juliet cases” arise when teenage relationships are opposed by families and are converted into criminal complaints out of personal vendetta. This has led to situations where young individuals, despite the absence of coercion or sexual exploitation, face prosecution under provisions carrying severe punishments. Against this backdrop, the Rajasthan High Court had to examine whether the strict application of the POCSO Act in a case involving a 19-year-old boy and a 17-year-old girl truly served the purpose of the act or resulted in misuse of the law.
Facts:
A criminal case was registered under the POCSO Act against a 19-year-old boy for allegedly eloping with a 17-year-old girl. The complaint was filed by the girl’s brother. During the investigation and proceedings, the girl had stated multiple times that she had left home voluntarily and was not subjected to any sort of coercion or sexual exploitation. There was no allegation from her side regarding forceful sexual intercourse. Additionally, there was no medical evidence to indicate the same.
Despite this, serious provisions of the POCSO Act, including aggravated penetrative sexual assault, were invoked. After the police filed a chargesheet and the special POCSO court framed charges, the accused approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking relief. Later, even the complainant supported the accused’s plea to quash the case.
Issues of the Case:
- Whether the POCSO Act can be applied to consensual relationships between adolescents of the same age group?
- Whether invoking stringent POCSO provisions without allegations or evidence of sexual assault is equivalent to misusing the law?
- Whether treating a 17-year-old girl as completely lacking agency violates her autonomy and lived reality?
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner argued that the criminal proceedings initiated against him were an abuse of the legal process. The relationship was consensual and the girl herself had repeatedly stated that she had left her home voluntarily and that no offence had been committed against her. There was no allegation or medical evidence suggesting penetrative sexual assault that could attract the provisions of the POCSO Act. Invoking charges of aggravated penetrative sexual assault, which carry a minimum sentence of twenty years, was disproportionate.
The State argued that the POCSO Act is a strict legislation enacted to protect minors. Therefore, the consent of a minor is legally irrelevant. Since the girl was below the age of 18 at the time of the incident, any relationship with her automatically attracted the provisions of the POCSO Act. The prosecution submitted that the law must be applied uniformly to ensure complete protection of children. Allowing exceptions based on consent or proximity of age could dilute the purpose of the Act and create loopholes that may be exploited.
Judgement and Analysis:
The Rajasthan High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused. The Court stated that although consensual relationships between young adults are considered socially unacceptable and it goes against the popular societal idea of morality, it is not illegal. The POCSO Act was framed keeping in mind the vulnerability of children who could easily fall prey to sexual predators. It does not intend to persecute young adults for entering into consensual romantic relationships.
The Hon’ble Court stated that: “There is a pressing need to bridge the gap between the protective intent of the POCSO Act and the sociological reality of adolescent autonomy”.
The Court criticised the mechanical application of the law by the police and the trial court. Framing charges for aggravated penetrative sexual assault in the absence of any allegation or medical evidence was totally unjustified. The Court stated that the Special Judge acted like a “mere post office” for the prosecution.
Most importantly, the Court emphasised on the need for legal reforms and urged the Central Government to consider introducing an exemption clause in the act for consensual relationships between teenagers of the same age group.
