Can Offences Under POCSO Act Be Quashed If Accused Marries Victim? Himachal Pradesh High Court Refers Issue To Larger Bench

“Since, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of quashing the FIR, on the basis of compromise, in heinous offences, like the present one, as such, this matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice, for referring the same, to the larger Bench”.

The directions to this effect came in response to a petition filed by Ranjeet Kumar, seeking the quashing of FIR registered against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act.

Assailing the FIR the petitioner argued that he had married the child victim with the consent of both families, and a compromise had been reached, with the child victim and her parents no longer interested in pursuing the case. The petitioner urged the court to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings, keeping in view this mutual agreement between the parties involved and for the preservation of their matrimonial life.

Justice Virendra Singh, while delving into the complexities of the case, noted the seriousness of the offenses under the POCSO Act and the societal impact of such crimes.

Referencing Alakh Alok Srivastava versus Union of India and others (2018) the court said,

“The legislature, in its wisdom, has enacted the POCSO Act, with an object to reduce the child abuse and protection of the children from Sexual offence”

Rejecting the compromise between the parties as inconsequential keeping in view the serious nature of the offences the court said,

“..In the serious offences, like the present one, crime is always against the State and the private party cannot compromise the matter…Since the offences, as mentioned in the FIR in question, are against the society, as such, the proceedings should be continued enabling the Competent Court of Law to find the truth, on the basis of the evidence, so led during the trial”.

Bench said that allowing compromises in cases of heinous offences might encourage offenders to manipulate the legal system, defeating the purpose of legislation like the POCSO Act.

“Accepting such settlement would also encourage the other criminals, involved in such type of heinous offences, to indulge in such type of activities and then, to enter into the compromise, with the complainant or the child victim, with the ulterior motive to defeat the object of the legislature for enacting this special statue, like POCSO Act, which has overriding effect over other laws, as, this act is in addition, not in derogation of any other law”.

Given the conflicting decisions on the issue by the coordinate benches, Justice Singh referred the matter to a larger bench.

“In such situation, when, this Court finds it difficult to concur with the view taken by the Co-ordinateBench of this Court in Sahil’s and Sakshi’s cases (supra), hence, in order to maintain the judicial decorum, the matter is required to be referred to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, for referring the same to the larger Bench”, the court concluded.

Case Title: Ranjeet Kumar Vs State Of HP

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 74

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment