Orissa High Court Distinguishes Adolescent Consensual Relationships from Sexual Abuse
The Orissa High Court has made a significant statement regarding adolescent relationships. It declared that consensual relationships between teenagers are legally different from cases of sexual abuse. The court emphasized that criminalizing such consensual ties is not permissible under the law.
Court Directs Youth to Approach Trial Court for Bail
Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra issued this observation while disposing of a plea. The petitioner is a 21-year-old youth who has remained in jail since January 11. The court directed him to approach the trial court to apply for bail.
Justice Mishra instructed the trial court to consider all facts of the case. It must also review relevant legal judgments cited by the petitioner's counsel during the bail hearing.
Victim and Father Withdraw Prosecution Desire
The girl involved in the case is 17 years old. Both she and her father submitted statements to the High Court. They expressed that they no longer wish to prosecute the young man.
They attributed this change of heart to the intervention of well-wishers. A settlement has been reached between the families, leading to their request to drop the case.
Court Cites Its Own Precedent from March 2025
The High Court referred to its own ruling from March of the previous year. In that order, the court had stated that continuing legal proceedings sometimes serves no legitimate purpose. It can instead cause unnecessary hardship to both parties involved.
In the current case, the court reiterated its stance. It noted the petitioner and the victim were in an adolescent consensual relationship. This context makes it distinguishable from sexual abuse, hence forbidding its criminalization.
Background of the Case and Legal Proceedings
The case originated from an FIR registered on November 18, 2025. It was filed under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The charges included kidnapping a minor and rape.
The complaint came from the 17-year-old girl. She alleged the 21-year-old youth induced her to travel with him on the promise of marriage. She claimed he established physical relations with her during this period.
According to the prosecution, the girl traveled with the petitioner between November 11 and 15, 2025. They stayed at various places including a lodge and relatives' houses. Difficulties arose after the petitioner's family intervened in the matter.
Father Files Affidavit Citing Misunderstanding and Settlement
Later, the girl's father submitted an affidavit before the High Court. He stated the FIR was lodged due to misunderstandings, emotional distress, and confusion. He explained that both families resolved their dispute through elder intervention.
The victim and her father expressed no objection to quashing the proceedings. They asserted the girl was now in a stable emotional condition.
Arguments Presented by Legal Counsels
Advocate S Sourav represented the petitioner. He argued the case involved a consensual adolescent relationship, not sexual exploitation. He contended that continuing criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
Sourav urged courts to carefully assess the context. They must consider the victim's statement and the proximity of age between the parties. This approach avoids perversity of justice that results in incarcerating young men despite consensual relationships.
Additional Standing Counsel S Devi opposed the plea. She submitted that the investigation was still ongoing. She noted the victim had initially supported the prosecution version before the magistrate.
Court's Instructions to the Trial Court
The High Court felt quashing the FIR at this stage may not be expedient. It based this on the affidavit filed by the girl's father. Instead, it relegated the petitioner to move a bail application before the trial court.
The trial court must take several factors into consideration:
- The judgments cited by the petitioner's counsel.
- The specific facts of the present case.
- The affidavit filed by the father of the girl.
The trial court retains the authority to verify the authenticity of the father's affidavit. The father and the girl may also appear before the trial court during the bail hearing if they wish.
The High Court expressed its expectation. It hopes the trial court will decide the bail application as expeditiously as possible.
This ruling highlights the judiciary's nuanced approach to cases involving adolescent relationships. It underscores the importance of distinguishing consensual acts from abusive ones in legal proceedings.
