The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 IPC and Sections 4 and 12 of the POCSO Act against an accused for kidnapping and raping a 13-year-old girl in 2013. The petition was based on a compromise deed, with the accused now married to the victim and fathering four children with her.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, while rejecting the petition, held that sexual offences involving minors are serious and heinous crimes against society, not private disputes, and thus cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a subsequent compromise. The Court emphasized that the victim was a child at the time of the incident, and the law under the POCSO Act does not permit exceptions on account of later marriage or settlement.
Amicus Curiae Mr. Ashish Bansal submitted that entertaining compromises in rape cases especially involving minors would dangerously normalize such practices and encourage social pressure on victims to marry their assailants. He warned that doing so could deter victims from reporting crimes and potentially promote child marriages as a legal shield for offenders. Bansal argued that compromises executed under such circumstances, particularly when not entered into by the accused himself (but by his brother, in this case), are not only legally untenable but also contrary to public policy and detrimental to the administration of justice. He stressed the role of courts as parens patriae in safeguarding the rights and autonomy of minors, especially girls.
The Court agreed, observing that validating such settlements would compromise the deterrent effect of criminal law and risk undermining the justice system. The Court also relied on Shimbhu v. State of Haryana,(2014) 13 SCC 318, Madan Lal v. State of M.P, (2015) 7 SCC 681, Laxmi Narayan v. State of M.P, (2019) 5 SCC 688, and Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1522, all of which held that rape and POCSO offences are non-compoundable and cannot be quashed on the basis of private compromise.
The Court noted that the trial had progressed substantially, with the case now fixed for defence evidence and arguments. It also recorded that the victim had supported the prosecution earlier and that the accused had absconded for nearly nine years after being declared a proclaimed offender.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the plea, reiterating that marriage and family circumstances cannot dilute the seriousness of child sexual abuse, and that the rights and welfare of victims especially minors must remain paramount.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mr. Akshit, Advocate.
Respondent: Mr. Surinder Kumar Dagar, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.
Amicus Curiae: Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocate