The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR under the POCSO Act against a man accused of sexual offences with a minor, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would result in re-victimisation of the prosecutrix and be contrary to the best interests of both her and her child.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani clarified at the outset that while quashing of proceedings under the POCSO Act is not barred, such power must be exercised with “careful and sensitive consideration” of the facts of each case. The Court emphasised that where a “de jure victim” (a minor in law) disclaims any injury, the Court must independently assess whether such consent is genuine, voluntary, and free from coercion before granting relief.
Laying down a structured framework, the Court held that several factors must guide the exercise of quashing jurisdiction in such cases, including whether the prosecutrix is acting of her own free will, whether she has consistently supported closure of proceedings, whether the relationship was voluntary, and whether the marriage or familial arrangement between the parties is genuine or merely a device to escape prosecution. The Court also underlined the need to assess the absence of violence or coercion, the relative ages of the parties, and the impact of prosecution on any child born from the relationship.
Applying these principles to the present case, the Court noted that the prosecutrix was about 17 years old at the time of the incident, while the petitioner was 22. Significantly, the FIR was not lodged by the prosecutrix but was registered after hospital authorities informed the police when she delivered a child. From the very beginning, she did not level any allegation against the petitioner and consistently maintained that the relationship was consensual.
The Court further recorded that the parties have since married and are raising their child together. There were no allegations of force, coercion, or brutality against the petitioner. During interaction with the Court, the prosecutrix unequivocally supported quashing of the proceedings, stating that continuation of the case would destroy her family and leave her and her infant without support.
In this backdrop, the Court held that insisting on continuation of criminal proceedings would not serve the ends of justice but would instead amount to an abuse of the process of law. It reiterated that the ultimate test in such cases is the welfare and best interests of the prosecutrix and the child, and that criminal law must not operate in a manner that causes further harm to those it seeks to protect.
Accordingly, the Court quashed FIR registered under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, along with all consequential proceedings, bringing the matter to a close.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Lokesh Kumar Mishra with Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Mr. Nadeem Ahmed, Advocates and petitioner in court.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anand V Khatri, ASC for the State with SI Pinki Rana.
