HC: Compromise after turning 18 no ground to quash POCSO FIR
FIRs involving heinous crimes such as rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the victim, after attaining the age of majority, has chosen to enter into a compromise with the accused, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled.
Justice Namit Kumar asserted that entertaining such petitions at the fag-end of a trial, based on belated settlements, would defeat the very object and purpose of the special enactment brought in to protect children from sexual exploitation.
Justice Kumar observed that quashing an FIR in a POCSO case on the strength of a compromise not only went against the statutory intent, but also resulted in abuse of the process of law and misuse of state machinery.
Justice Kumar held “U-turn” stands and statements in the trials of FIRs involving heinous crimes, especially POCSO Act, could not be permitted in a compromise quashing. “The courts as well as its settled legal procedures cannot be allowed to be used like tools by the litigant-parties just to twist and settle their interests, which undoubtedly leads to abuse the process of law,” the court added.
The petitioner had sought quashing of an FIR registered in June 2022 for kidnapping and other offences under Sections 363, 366, 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The quashing of FIR was sought on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The plea was filed when the trial was already at the stage of prosecution evidence.
Justice Kumar categorically rejected the plea, noting that the allegations in the FIR were grave — involving repeated rape of a minor in a hotel room, along with threats to silence her.
“Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. By simply entering into a compromise, charges cannot be said to have been mitigated or that the allegations levelled by the complainant and prosecutrix regarding the alleged offence lost its gravity by any means,” he held.
Further rejecting the argument that the complainant-mother and prosecutrix had turned hostile during trial, the court reiterated that mere hostility of witnesses or execution of a compromise was not a ground for acquittal in offences under the POCSO Act.
