P&H High Court Refuses To Quash POCSO Case Against Man Accused Of Offering Money, Making Obscene Gestures At Minor Girls

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash, on the basis of a compromise, an FIR alleging sexual harassment of two minor girls. The Court held that offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 cannot ordinarily be treated as disputes of a “purely personal or private character”.

Justice Neerja K. Kalson dismissed the petition. The Court noted that charges had been framed and four prosecution witnesses had already been examined. The Court observed:

“The compromise effected between private parties cannot be permitted to override larger public interest or defeat the legislative mandate embodied under the POCSO Act.”

The FIR was registered on December 23, 2024, at Police Station Bahuakbarpur, District Rohtak. It invoked Section 12 of the POCSO Act (sexual harassment) and Sections 126, 75(2) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The complainant alleged that her daughter, aged about 11, and another girl, aged about 13, were returning home after buying groceries at around 4 PM. The petitioner allegedly stopped them, made obscene gestures towards them and offered them money to go with him. The girls were frightened, went home and told the complainant what had happened.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of a compromise dated April 7, 2025, reached with the intervention of respectable persons of the locality and relatives. He argued the following:

It was submitted that the FIR had been lodged due to a misunderstanding, the complainant party no longer wished to pursue the case, in order to maintain peace and harmony, the alleged offences were not of an aggravated nature under the POCSO Act and the guardians of the minor victims had no objection to quashing.

The State opposed the petition and submitted that the statements of both girls had been recorded before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS, counselling had been provided to them; sufficient incriminating material had been collected during investigation, the challan had been filed, charges framed, and prosecution evidence was underway.

The Court said the object of the POCSO Act is to protect children from sexual offences and to ensure their dignity, mental well-being and safety. It noted that such offences have a serious social impact and “travel beyond the confines of an individual dispute.”

The Court relied on several Supreme Court decisions including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan: offences involving mental depravity or having a serious impact on society ought not to be quashed merely because the parties have settled.

The Court held that offences involving children “stand on a distinct footing.” It added, “Any liberal approach in matters involving allegations against children may dilute the deterrent object sought to be achieved by the statute.”

The Court also noted that the victims' statements had been recorded before a court, sufficient incriminating material had been collected, and the challan had been filed. Charges had been framed and four prosecution witnesses examined. The Court said the proceedings had “substantially progressed”.

The Court held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS exists to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. It “cannot be invoked in a manner that may result in stifling a legitimate prosecution involving allegations against minor victims.”

Stating that, "At this stage, this Court does not find it appropriate to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. /528 BNSS merely on the basis of a compromise, particularly when the allegations relate to misconduct against minor children and the trial has already progressed considerably," the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Mohit Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Akshat Dalal, Advocate for respondent No.2