Sexual Assault Child Victim Has No Locus To File Quashing Plea In Name Of Saving Family's Honour, Future: Himachal Pradesh HC

A bench of Justice Virender Singh further observed that quashing is also against the legislative intent of the POCSO Act.

“…since, the offence is against the society and if such type of cases are quashed, on the basis of the grounds, as taken in the petition, it would encourage the other accused, who had committed such offence, to adopt the extra constitutional means to settle the matter i.e. influencing the witness by fiduciary relationship, using the money power or threatening the victim/complainant and to settle the matter in the name of honour of the family,” the bench further observed.

The bench made these observations while dismissing a plea filed by the father of the sexual offence victim, seeking to quash the FIR he had previously lodged against Respondent No. 2 (the accused) under Sections 363, 354-A, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR on the grounds that he had reached a compromise with the accused.

Furthermore, he argued that the FIR posed an obstacle to his daughter's upcoming betrothal ceremony, as the prospective groom's family had set a precondition that no litigation should be pending in relation to the girl.

At the outset, the Court opined that the complainant's role ends after the criminal machinery is set in motion, and thus, a petition for quashing the serious offence cannot be entertained on behalf of the victim or complainant.

“…this Court is of the view that the petitioner, being complainant/father of the child victim, has no locus standi to file the present petition, seeking the quashing of FIR, in question, mainly on the ground to save the honour of the family. In the name of honour of the family, the heinous offence, as committed, in the present case, cannot be quashed or swept under the carpet,” the bench remarked.

In this regard, the bench referred to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the case of Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 865, wherein it was held that the matters related to sexual assault cannot be treated as private matters eligible for compromise-based quashing.

Consequently, the Court observed that if the prayer for quashing is allowed, it will amount to letting the accused go without legal punishment if the prosecution can prove the case against him beyond a reasonable doubt.

In view of this, the plea was dismissed.