Justice Is Not a Ceremony: Bombay High Court on Why Marriage Can’t Quash POCSO Offences in India

November 6, 2025
POCSO
5 min read

Scene: The Living Room

An evening in India — two families, united but anxious, weigh the consequences of a union. “Let them marry. The child will have both parents. The family’s honour will be safe.”

A wedding is quietly planned, hopes rise for private closure. Someone whispers, “Once they’re married, the case can be withdrawn.”

A counterpoint echoes:

“The law doesn’t work like that. Consent of a minor isn’t valid. The State has a duty to protect the child.”

In that living room, two worlds collide — one driven by emotion and the hope of restoration, the other bound by public obligation and statutory duty. At the heart of the debate lies a familiar tension: private settlement on one side, societal responsibility on the other.

From Living Room to Law

This scene is not mere fiction. 

It mirrors Mirza Aslam Beigh & Ors vs State of Maharashtra and Ors (Criminal Application [APL] No. 1128 of 2025), where the Bombay High Court faced a pivotal question:

Can marriage and family agreement erase legal protection for minors under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO”)?

Mirza Aslam Beigh, aged 29, married a minor in June 2024, when she was 17. Both families had approved the marriage, and the couple later welcomed a child. Yet, after the birth, police at Telhara registered an FIR under:

  • Sections 4(1) and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012,
  • Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and
  • Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The State maintained that since the girl was a minor at the time of marriage, her consent was legally irrelevant. Beigh petitioned to quash the FIR, citing voluntary relationship, family consent, and hardship arising from prosecution. The prosecution stood firm — offences under POCSO should be considered matters of public concern, not private compromise.

The Bombay High Court declined to quash the FIR. It reaffirmed that once an offence falls within the POCSO framework, subsequent marriage or childbirth cannot erase criminal liability.

The Court also observed that child protection is a statutory duty of the State — not a private negotiation. Humanitarian concerns such as family hardship or the welfare of a child cannot override the existence of the offence itself.

The verdict was clear: public duty cannot be overridden by personal reconciliation.

Broader Judicial Context

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that POCSO offences are heinous and non-compoundable, and cannot be quashed through compromise or marriage. In In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (2024), the Court restored a conviction for aggravated sexual assault while exercising limited powers under Article 142 to prioritize the victim’s rehabilitation. The bench made it clear that such relief was case-specific, driven by the State’s failure to protect the minor, and could not serve as a precedent for diluting the rigour of POCSO. 

In fact, High Courts have also been cautioned that the power to quash an FIR must only be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. 

Other High Courts have also taken consistent positions:

  • The Madras High Court has ruled that POCSO offences are crimes against society, rejecting marriage as a defence.
  • The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an FIR for a POCSO offence cannot be quashed on the basis of any compromise or marriage between the accused and the victim.

Policy Debates 

Recent research and legal scholarship, such as the analysis by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, highlight the complex realities and challenges posed by the current POCSO framework for adolescent relationships. 

POCSO’s blanket criminalization means all sexual activity with minors is an offence, regardless of consent.

In practice, over 80% of “romantic” POCSO cases arise from parental objections, not exploitation. This approach often draws willing adolescents into the criminal justice system, stigmatizing them and risking their futures—even where both parties describe a consensual relationship.

The Vidhi analysis thus calls for nuanced reform: introducing “close-in-age” exceptions, greater child rights sensitivity, and stronger focus on genuine abuse, to ensure the law truly safeguards without inadvertently victimizing the youth it seeks to protect.

Policy debates around adolescent relationships continue, but until legislative change occurs, the statutory threshold of 18 remains the binding legal standard.

Organisational Takeaways

For institutions working with minors — schools, NGOs, workplaces with outreach programs, or CSR partners — this case underscores several mandatory and legally binding responsibilities under your Child Protection Policy:

  • Immediate Reporting: Suspected POCSO violations must be reported without delay; informal mediation or settlement should not be permissible.
  • Vendor and Partner Compliance: Contracts should include child protection clauses, mandatory training, and termination triggers for violations.
  • Training & Awareness: Staff must understand reporting protocols, record-keeping requirements, and full cooperation with law enforcement.
  • Escalation Protocols: Any pressure to “close” a case due to marriage or family compromise must be escalated and documented.
  • Periodic Audits: All organisations must have periodic audits of reporting mechanisms, staff awareness, and child protection clauses in contracts, ensuring up-to-date compliance.

These measures ensure that the protection of minors is embedded in daily operations and governance. Failure to comply is a breach of statutory duty and exposes your organisation to legal, reputational, and ethical risk.

Closing Reflection

The Mirza Aslam Beigh case reaffirms an unambiguous truth: justice is not a ceremony, and protection cannot be annulled by marriage.

When statutory duty collides with social custom, the law demands that we stand with the child — not the compromise. For organisations and individuals alike, the message is clear: protecting minors is not a favour or a formality; it is a continuing public responsibility that transcends time, consent, and circumstance.

Pause and reflect – Is your child protection policy up to date?

Now is the time to review, revise, and reinforce your organisation’s commitment:

  • Audit your reporting protocols.
  • Conduct fresh training for staff and partners.
  • Update contracts and vendor clauses for mandatory compliance.
  • Escalate and document any attempts at informal settlement.

Don’t wait for a crisis—make child protection a daily, visible priority. Justice begins with proactive safeguarding.

Suggested Reading 

Contact Us