POCSO Cases Can Be Quashed If Victim & Accused Reach A Genuine Compromise, Are Leading Happy Married Life: HP High Court

Answering a reference from a single Judge of the Court as to whether the High Court could quash an FIR based on a compromise in a POCSO case by invoking its powers under Section 482 CrPC the Division Bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Satyen Vaidya observed,

“..In a Case of instant kind where the victim had earlier alleged that she had been subjected to sexual assault but then has later on settled the dispute and has got married to the accused and is leading a peaceful life. Invariably, in such like cases, the Court after being satisfied would not allow the prosecution to continue, which would only result in disturbances of their happy family life”.

The case centred around a man accused of sexual assault under the POCSO Act. However, the victim, now his wife, and her family had reconciled and amicably resolved the dispute. Their commitment to a new life together culminated in their marriage

The Single Judge, while hearing the plea for quashing of the FIR on the ground of compromise had held that the compromise of the child victim and her parents with the petitioner was inconsequential. The court had emphasised that in serious offences like those under the POCSO Act, the crime is against the State, and private parties cannot compromise the matter.

Given the conflicting judgments by the coordinate benches of the court and other high courts of the country, the single judge referred the matter to the Chief Justice so that the matter could be settled by a larger bench.

In its comprehensive analysis, the Division Bench explored the nature and scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and Section 320 Cr.P.C., which deals with compounding of offences. The court referred to several significant decisions, including B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, establishing the High Court's authority to quash criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable offences.

“There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Courts to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances may lead to grave injustice….No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment can whittle down the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to do complete justice”, the court recorded.

Laying down principles to guide the High Court in dealing with settlements between parties in cases involving sexual offences against women and children the bench highlighted the need to consider the best interest of the child and observed,

“..while dealing with the petitions moved by the parents or guardians of the sexual assault victim to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground of compromise, the Court must consider whether the allegations prima facie constitutes the ingredients of the offence, whether the settlement is in the best interest of the minor victim and whether continuation of the proceedings against the accused and the participation of the minor victim in those proceedings would adversely affect the mental, physical and emotional well being of the latter”.

Observing that the Court must ensure that the marriage is not a camouflage to escape punishment and the consent given by the victim for compromise is voluntary the bench pointed,

“The criminal prosecution was set into motion only because the victim happens to be a child but otherwise she was in love with the accused. It is also not in dispute that the accused was interested to soleminise marriage with the child victim and has, in fact, soleminised marriage..the victim got married and was leading a peaceful life and, therefore, allowing the prosecution to continue in such case would only result in disturbance in their happy family life and ends of justice in such circumstances would demand that the parties be allowed to compromise”.

In light of these observations, the Division bench held that the view taken by the Single Judge on the issue was not correct and hence set it aside. Resultantly the petition was allowed and the FIR for POCSO Act was quashed.

Case Title: Ranjeet Kumar Vs State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 79

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment