POCSO Act Cases Can't Be Quashed On Ground Of Victim Entering Into A Compromise With Accused: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that under the POSCO Act 2012, regarded as a "Special Statute", offences cannot be dismissed solely on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the prosecutrix-victim.

"Once the consent of the minor prosecutrix is immaterial for registration of offence, then such consent shall still remain immaterial for all practical purposes at all the stages including for compromise. Merely because, the minor prosecutrix has later on agreed to enter into a compromise with the applicant, would not be sufficient to quash the proceedings [under the POCSO Act]," a bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed.

The single judge made the said observation while dismissing a plea seeking setting aside of summoning, and cognizance orders as well as seeking a stay on criminal proceedings against the accused under Sections 376, 313 IPC and 3/4 of the POCSO Act. 

The case in brief

Essentially, the accused had moved the Court on the ground that after the lodging of the FIR, the conclusion of the investigation and summoning of the applicant by the trial court for the alleged offences, a compromise had been entered into between the parties and hence, the pending case be decided in terms of the said compromise. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 (victim) also supported the petition of the accused.

On the other hand, opposing the plea of the accused-applicant, the counsel for the state submitted that the accusations against the accused revolved around subjecting the victim to sexual assault over a period of three years, with the victim being approximately 15 years old during the commission of the alleged offence. 

It was also contended that since the victim was a minor at the time of the incidents, the charge sheet was filed under various relevant sections, and the trial court, after finding a prima facie offence against the applicant, summoned him accordingly. It was further argued that the petition should be dismissed since a compromise in a case of this nature cannot be entertained.

Court's observations

At the outset, while referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2014, the High Court noted that the offences which are alleged to have been committed under a "Special Statute" like the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution cannot be quashed merely based on compromise between the victim and the offender.

Further, taking note of the contentions of both parties, the Court added that when an offence is made out against the accused irrespective of the fact that whether the prosecutrix was a consenting party or not, then certainly, the "prosecution cannot be quashed merely on the ground that at a later stage the prosecutrix has entered into a compromise"

"It is, thus clear that where the accused is facing trial for the offence of rape, then the factum of compromise under no circumstances can be of any help to him. They are crimes against the body of a woman. The honour of a woman cannot be put to stake by compromise or settlement," the Court further remarked.

In view of the above, noting that offences alleged against the applicant are not compoundable, the Court refused to allow the petition and hence, it dismissed the same.

Case title - Sanjeev Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 227 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9169 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 227

Click Here To Read/Download Order