The Delhi High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, holding that a victim’s willingness to continue living with the accused, even when supported by her family, cannot override the statutory safeguards available to a minor under the law.
Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the victim’s present wishes and the question of criminal liability for offences allegedly committed when she was a minor are legally distinct issues. The Court emphasised that a subsequent marriage or settlement between the parties cannot, by itself, erase the criminal consequences of an alleged offence under the POCSO Act.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by a man seeking quashing of an FIR registered in 2023 under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The petition was founded on a settlement between the parties and their subsequent matrimonial relationship.
According to the prosecution, the complainant’s daughter went missing in February 2023, when she was approximately 15 years old. She was traced in December 2023, following which a medical examination revealed that she was pregnant. In her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the girl stated that she had accompanied the petitioner voluntarily and had entered into a physical relationship with him with her consent.
The couple subsequently married and had a child in June 2024. The petitioner acknowledged paternity. Before the High Court, he contended that the couple was living together happily as a family. The victim and her mother also appeared before the Court, supported the plea for quashing the FIR and submitted affidavits expressing no objection to the termination of the proceedings.
The State opposed the petition, relying on the victim’s school records, which recorded her date of birth as March 15, 2008. On this basis, she was approximately 14 years and 10 months old when she left home in February 2023. The State argued that the subsequent marriage and settlement could not extinguish the criminal liability arising from allegations of serious offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act.
Taking note of the medical evidence establishing pregnancy in December 2023 and the subsequent birth of the child in June 2024, the Court observed that the material on record prima facie disclosed a physical relationship between the petitioner and the victim. The petitioner had also acknowledged being the child’s father.
The Court held that these circumstances provided a substantial prima facie foundation for the allegation of penetrative sexual assault involving the aggravated circumstance under Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 6.
Addressing the discrepancy concerning the victim’s age, the Court noted that although she had described herself as 18 in her statement, the identity document relied upon by the petitioner reflected a different year of birth from the one mentioned in her school records. It held that the competing records could not be conclusively evaluated in proceedings seeking quashing of the FIR and that the issue would have to be determined by the trial court on the basis of evidence.
The High Court reiterated that under the POCSO Act, a child is any person below 18 years of age and that penetrative sexual assault resulting in pregnancy attracts the aggravated offence provisions of the statute.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Independent Thought v. Union of India and Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action v. Union of India, the Court underscored that marriage does not dilute the protection afforded to children under criminal law. It also relied on Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan, which disapproved of quashing POCSO proceedings merely on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
The Court distinguished the Supreme Court’s decisions in K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, observing that the relief granted in those matters was in exercise of the Supreme Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. Such decisions, it clarified, cannot be treated as laying down a general rule that a subsequent marriage or settlement is sufficient to quash POCSO proceedings.
While acknowledging the victim’s desire to continue her matrimonial relationship with the petitioner, her mother’s support and the welfare of their child, Justice Narula held that these humanitarian considerations could not independently justify terminating prosecution involving serious allegations under the POCSO Act.
The Court, however, left it open to the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court for appropriate relief under Article 142 of the Constitution, while making it clear that it was expressing no opinion on whether such relief would be granted.
Dismissing the quashing petition, the High Court directed that the Special Court would independently examine the victim’s age, the ingredients of the alleged offences and all other issues arising in the case on the basis of evidence, uninfluenced by the observations made while deciding the petition.
The post Victim’s desire to continue living with accused no ground to quash POCSO case: Delhi High Court appeared first on India Legal.