By law, a person under the age of 18 cannot consent to sex.

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, saying that a person below the age of 18 years cannot consent to sexual intercourse.                                    The court was hearing a case in which a case under section 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act is pending against the applicant in the Court of Special Judge POCSO Act.The applicant had filed an application under section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings in the same case pending in the court of the Special Judge.                                                                According to the case, the complainant had lodged a complaint that His minor daughter was kidnapped by her neighbor Saurabh on 11 March 2022 when she went to the field to guard her wheat crop.                                                                               The applicant argued in the court that he and the victim had a love marriage on March 15, 2022. Before marriage, the victim had renounced Muslim religion and converted to Hinduism.The applicant also submitted a copy of the marriage certificate to the court in support of his contention.Apart from this, the applicant has also submitted an affidavit in the court in which it has been claimed that the age of the victim at the time of incident was 17 years and 8 months.The victim had said in her statement to the investigating officer that she is 18 years old and she loves Saurabh and wants to get married and live with him.When the victim was asked to undergo medical examination, she refused to undergo her medical examination.In his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, victim had said that he was 18 years old.She went with Saurabh on her own free will and wants to marry Saurabh and live with him without any pressure।                    The applicant contended that thus the charge sheet has been filed against him without proper investigation and all the allegations leveled against him are fabricated and baseless.                                                The applicant requested the court that all the allegations leveled against him are false and hence all the proceedings pending in the lower court should be quashed.                                                        On the other hand, the counter affidavit filed by the complainant claimed that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident.She was abducted by Saurabh. Charge sheet against him under relevant sections of Indian Penal Code and POCSO Act has been submitted in the Court of Special Judge. Court of Special Judge has taken cognizance of the case on the basis of facts and evidence available on record.                                                         The Single Judge Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma, after hearing both the parties and on the basis of evidence on record, concluded that Scrutiny of school certificate of the victim reveals that the victim was a minor at the time of incident i.e. below 18 years of age.Being a minor, she was legally ineligible to convert and consent to sexual intercourse at the time of the incident.                      The court said that the victim had given a statement in favor of the applicant under pressure from the applicant and the police.,Due to pressure, he also refused to undergo medical examination.He also gave the statement recorded under section 164 of CrPC in the presence of the police.,The court said that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, so the marriage certificate produced was not eligible for consideration.                                              The court said that the charge sheet has been submitted in the court only after proper investigation, therefore it cannot be said that the pending legal proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court,The evidence on record indicates that the applicant could not make out any prima facie case for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482.                                     The court said therefore the petition filed by the applicant to set aside the proceedings pending in the lower court is dismissed.