In the Matter of John Franklin Shylla v. State of Meghalaya a criminal complaint brought under Section 482 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure to annul and nullify the whole Special Case against the petitioner for violations of Sections 3(a) and 4 of the 2012 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The accused was employed by several homes in the year 2020, including the mother’s maternal aunt’s home where the young child lived. The accused became friendly with the young girl. During the course of their acquaintanceship, the two grew close and began to experience sentiments of love; as a result, a relationship developed between them. The young woman and the accused met on January 18, 2021, at around 4:00 PM, and the two of them went to his home where he presented her to his parents. The accused and the juvenile spent some time there before going to his uncle’s home, where they spent the night together and engaged in sexual activity. The accused went to the minor’s home the following morning with her. However, on January 19, 2021, the mother of the kid filed a police report against the petitioner for violations of Sections 363 of the Penal Code, 1860 read in conjunction with Sections 3(a) and 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
Analysis of Court order
Justice W. Diengdoh of the Meghalaya High Court’s Single Judge Bench granted the petition and invalidated the First Information Report filed against the accused as well as the Special POSCO case’s procedures.The Court stated that even though the alleged victim girl is a minor, as she acknowledged in her statement pursuant to Section 164 and in her deposition before the Court, it would be reasonable to assume that such a person is capable of making a conscious decision regarding his or her well-being as to the actual act of sexual intercourse given their physical and mental development at that age. Furthermore, the Court stated that it looked men’s rea was not there at first glance. Due to the particular facts and circumstances, the Court concluded that the case’s proceeding before the Trial Court would be useless. As a result, the Court granted the petitioner’s request and dismissed the POCSO Case’s further proceedings as well as the FIR that had been filed against the petitioner. Additionally, the petitioner was released from all obligations related to the aforementioned lawsuit.