Gauhati High Court news: Underscoring that though marital rape is not criminalised in India, the Gauhati High Court has said that a romantic relationship does not grant a man “license” to force sexual relations upon a woman, refusing to quash a rape case involving a minor despite a compromise between the accused and the survivor’s family.Justice Pranjal Das was hearing a criminal petition filed under Section 528 (inherent powers of high court) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), observing that serious offences such as rape, particularly those involving minors under the POCSO Act, cannot be treated as private disputes capable of settlement. Justice Pranjal Das noted that the survivor was around 17 years old at the time of the incident, making provisions of the POCSO Act squarely applicable to the case.“Even if a man and a woman are in a relationship; that would certainly not give a license to the man to commit rape upon the girl. Though marital rape is still not criminalized in the country, but even in a premarital love relationship between a man and a woman; committing forceful physical relationship upon her against her wish would still be a criminal act,” the Gauhati High Court said.Also Read | 30 per cent law officers at Centre, state must be women: Supreme Court’s Justice B V NagarathnaCourt’s analysis: Consent, nature of offenceAfter examining the materials on record, the Gauhati High Court found that the survivor had indeed referred to a love relationship with the accused, but had consistently denied any consensual physical relationship.The bench observed that the existence of a relationship cannot be equated with consent to sexual acts, especially when the survivor’s statements clearly allege force.The victim was around 17 years old at the time of the incident, making the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act squarely applicable.A key factor in the Gauhati High Court’s reasoning was that the compromise was entered into between the accused and the victim’s father, not the victim herself.The survivor is now a major, and her independent consent or objection is crucial.There was no material to show that the survivor supported the compromise, and her earlier statements consistently supported the prosecution’s case.This significantly weakened the petitioner’s case for quashing.FIR, charges, timelineThe case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) registered on February 1, 2025, in Assam, based on a complaint filed by the survivor’s father. The complainant alleged that on January 29, 2025, at around 4 pm, the accused entered their residence in the absence of family members and raped his minor daughter.Also Read | 6 airbags, zero protection: Consumer court orders full refund for safety failureThe accused allegedly fled the scene after threatening the victim not to disclose the incident. The father stated that he came to know of the incident later that evening and noticed that his daughter’s clothes were torn – circumstances which, according to him, corroborated the allegation of sexual assault.Following the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet on April 30, 2025, under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including offences relating to rape and criminal intimidation, along with Section 4 of the POCSO Act.Petitioner’s caseThe accused approached the Gauhati High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, placing heavy reliance on subsequent developments after the FIR. His primary argument was that he was in a consensual romantic relationship with the survivor at the time of the alleged rape.Story continues below this adThe survivor has since attained majority, and a compromise deed dated May 30, 2025, was executed between the accused and the victim’s father, he stated, adding that both families have resolved their differences and the couple intend to marry.The informant (father) also filed an affidavit supporting the accused’s plea, stating that he had no objection to quashing the proceedings and claiming that the FIR allegations were made under external influence from members of an organisation.Prosecution’s oppositionThe state opposed the plea, stressing that the allegations disclosed a grave offence that could not be nullified through compromise.The prosecution pointed out that the survivor, in her statements before the magistrate and during the investigation, consistently alleged that the accused had raped her. There was no indication of consent in her version of events. The offences invoked rape and POCSO are serious crimes with societal implications, not merely private disputes, it was stated.Story continues below this adSupreme Court precedentsThe Gauhati High Court bench relied on authoritative Supreme Court rulings, including Narinder Singh vs State of Punjab and State of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi Narayan, which lay down the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings.Also Read | Can daughter get family pension after her parents’ death post divorce? Tripura High Court clarifiesThese judgments make it clear that courts may quash proceedings in cases of a predominantly civil or private nature. However, heinous offences such as rape, which have a serious societal impact, cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.Applying these principles, the Gauhati High Court held that the present case fell squarely within the category of serious offences where judicial interference to terminate proceedings would be inappropriate.Distinction from other casesThe Gauhati High Court also distinguished several precedents cited by the petitioner, noting that in some cases, courts found the relationship to be consensual based on facts. In others, proceedings were not quashed outright, but parties were relegated to trial.Story continues below this adIn POCSO cases, courts have consistently exercised restraint in quashing proceedings, it said. Thus, the cited judgments did not aid the petitioner’s case.VerdictConcluding that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify quashing, the Gauhati High Court held that exercising inherent powers in such a case would be contrary to the intent of criminal law.It ruled that the allegations disclose a prima facie case of rape, and the victim’s statements support the prosecution. The compromise does not outweigh the seriousness of the offence. Accordingly, the criminal petition was dismissed, and the case will proceed to trial, the court said.