'Ruse To Avoid Conviction': Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash POCSO Case Despite Marriage Between Accused, Prosecutrix

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act despite the accused and the prosecutrix having married each other and having a child together, holding that such cases require a “careful and sensitive consideration” and that marriage cannot automatically justify closure of prosecution.

Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking quashing of an FIR registered in 2022 under Sections 363, 376 and 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The FIR was initially lodged by the father of the prosecutrix alleging that his 16-year-old daughter had gone missing. After the girl returned home, offences under the POCSO Act and rape provisions were added based on her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

The petitioner argued that he and the prosecutrix had subsequently married on July 10, 2024 and had a child born from the wedlock in June 2025. Relying on the Delhi High Court's earlier decision in Harmeet Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), the petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings on the basis of settlement, marital harmony and welfare of the child.

The State opposed the plea, pointing out that the trial had already concluded and the matter was pending only for pronouncement of judgment. It was also argued that the petitioner had earlier filed a similar quashing petition which was withdrawn without liberty to file afresh.

The State further submitted that the petitioner had violated a bail condition imposed by the Sessions Court restraining him from contacting the prosecutrix or her family members, since the marriage itself was solemnised during the period of bail.

The High Court observed that while courts do possess inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable offences, the Supreme Court has consistently carved out exceptions for heinous offences such as rape.

Referring to Harmeet Singh, the Court reiterated that quashing of POCSO proceedings based on settlement is not barred altogether, but requires close judicial scrutiny to ensure that the arrangement is genuine and not a ruse to avoid conviction.

It noted that before quashing the crime, it must be examined whether the victim acted voluntarily, whether she consistently opposed the prosecution from inception, and whether the marriage appeared genuine or merely a stratagem to evade punishment.

Applying those principles, the Court found that the prosecutrix had, both in her statement under Section 164 CrPC and in her testimony before the trial court, supported the prosecution case rather than seeking closure of proceedings.

“This is thus not a case where the prosecutrix has consistently opposed the prosecution since inception, or claimed any degree of volition in the relationship between her and the petitioner. The aforesaid circumstances dissuade me from a conclusion, at this stage, that the acts of the parties were volitional on the part of the de-juré victim, as required by paragraph 36.3 of Harmeet Singh,” the Court said.

It further held that the case disclosed an “ex facie case of violation” of the bail condition prohibiting the accused from contacting the prosecutrix and her family.

As such, holding that the case did not disclose the “exceptional circumstances” required for exercise of inherent powers, the Court refused to quash the proceedings.

Appearance: Mr. Vikas Pal and Mr. Rohit Yadav, Advocates for Petitioner; Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with Mr. Abhimanyu Arya, Advocate. SI Hemant and WSI Radha.

Case title: Sonu v. State

Case no.: CRL.M.C. 2001/2026

Click here to read order