Supreme Court  
National

SC quashes POCSO case against man using extraordinary power

Article 142 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for doing "complete justice"

PTI

NEW DELHI: Invoking its extraordinary authority under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has quashed the conviction of a man sentenced under the POCSO Act after noting that the victim has married the accused on attaining the age of majority.

Article 142 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for doing "complete justice" in any cause pending before it to ensure justice.

In this case, the man and the woman fell in love while she was studying in class 12.

When he refused to marry her, she had filed a complaint against the man resulting in him being sentenced to 10 years under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for having physical relations with a minor.

The woman later married another man, who left her days after he came to know of her previous relationship

While out on bail, the man reconciled with her and they both married and started living together.

After their marriage, the couple started living together and thereafter the woman moved the Madras High Court seeking to set aside conviction of her husband under POCSO Act. The high court, however, rejected her plea which prompted the couple to move the top court.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar said the appellant and the victim are free to live their life peacefully in society as spouse.

"Without entering into the merits of the case, in the peculiar facts, we deem it appropriate to exercise our plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant...for the charge under Section 5(1) of POCSO Act and the appellant is acquitted from the charge," the bench said.

The apex court said the order has been passed in the peculiar facts of the case and will not be treated as a precedent for any other purpose.

"As the substantive jail sentence of the appellant was suspended by the high court vide order dated June 3, 2019, he need not surrender until required in any other case," the bench added.

Madras HC allows plea seeking Udhayanidhi’s election records

Ajith Kumar's brother pens emotional tribute to mother, extends support to racing team

Anbumani accuses Karnataka of preparing DPR for the Mekedatu dam without Tamil Nadu's approval

Raghava Lawrence postpones life decision announcement after Bharathiraja’s death

Congress delegation to meet EC over rejection of Meenakshi Natarajan's RS nomination