POCSO- FIR Cannot Be Quashed On The Ground That Victim Decided To Compromise Matter After Attaining Majority: Delhi HC

POCSO- FIR Cannot Be Quashed On The Ground That Victim Decided To Compromise Matter After Attaining Majority: Delhi HC

The Hon’ble Delhi HC has observed that “an FIR filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act, 2012″) cannot be quashed on the ground that the victim after attaining majority decided to compromise the matter with the accused.” 

The Hon’ble single judge bench while hearing the parties in the present case observed that “exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C., 1973”) to quash an offense under POCSO Act, 2012 would go against the intent of the legislature which has brought out the special enactment to protect the interests of children. 

At the outset, the Hon’ble court was dealing with a petition filed under section. 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking quashing of FIR registered under section. 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), section. 354D (Stalking), section. 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation), section. 509 (Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), section. 34 (Common intention) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC, 1860”) and section. 10 (Punishment for aggravated sexual assault) of the POCSO Act, 2012. 

Necessary to note that the petition was filed on the ground that both the prosecutrix and the petitioner have compromised the matter. 

According to the charge sheet filed by the police authorities, the prosecutrix had alleged that the accused, a distant relative, had started staying in her house and that the said accused person “started looking at her with strange eyes” in the absence of her parents. 

Moreover, it was also alleged by the prosecutrix in her statement that the accused, along with his other two nephews threatened the victim concerning her photographs and even to kill her parents. 

Subsequently, the Hon’ble Court, while noting that the exercise of jurisdiction under section. 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 in quashing an offence under POCSO will go against the intention of the legislature, also relied on the Statements of Objects and Reasons of the POCSO Act which reads “heinous crime like rape cannot be quashed by the High Court by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 even if the prosecutrix and the accused have entered into a compromise.” 

Given this, the Hon’ble Court dismissed the petition after observing that the Court was not inclined to quash FIR in a case wherein petitioners were accused of section. 10 of the POCSO Act, 1973.