Parents cannot reach compromise on child’s behalf in POCSO cases, says Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 23

Parents cannot enter into a compromise on a child’s behalf in a case involving his honour, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled. Justice Pankaj Jain made it clear that such a compromise between the parents could not be accorded reorganisation as they could not be allowed to compromise a child’s dignity by an agreement.

Can’t defeat purpose of Act

The compromise effected by the child and/or her parents, compromising the dignity of the child, cannot be raised to a status where it defeats the very object of the Act. Malkeet Singh, Ambala unit chief, BKU (Charuni)

Justice Jain also made it clear that any agreement/compromise executed by the child till the age of majority, too, would be “void ab initio” and could not be accorded validity. An FIR registered for offences punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act also could not be quashed on the basis of a compromise.

“Wherever and whenever in a society governed by rule of law the question will arise: who will protect from the protector? The only and obvious answer will be law,” Justice Jain asserted.

The assertion by Justice Jain came on a petition seeking on the basis of a compromise the quashing of an FIR registered on January 14, 2019, for criminal intimidation, house trespass and other offences registered under Sections 452 and 506 of the IPC, besides the provisions of the SC/ST Act and POCSO Act, at the women’s police station in Dabwali.

Justice Jain asserted that the question before the court was whether an FIR registered for offences punishable under the POCSO Act could be quashed on the basis of a compromise. Referring to the Act, Justice Jain asserted its statement of objects and reasons recognised duty cast upon the State to direct its policy towards preventing the abuse of children of tender age and protecting their childhood and youth against exploitation, besides giving facilities “to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity as directed by Article 39”.

The statement further declared the enforcement of right of all children to security, safety and protection from sexual abuse and exploitation. The Preamble declares it to be the Act for protecting the children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography. It was said to have been enacted with reference to Article 15 (3) of the Constitution. The Preamble further declared sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children as a heinous crime required to be effectively addressed.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Jain added: “The compromise effected by the child and/or her parents, compromising the dignity of the child, cannot be raised to a status where it defeats the very object of the Act”.