POCSO Prosecution Cannot Be Quashed Merely Because Minor Victim Refuses To Continue Case: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court set aside the order of the trial court that accepted the negative final report submitted by the police based on the consent given by the minor prosecutrix to the effect that she did not want to proceed with the proceedings against the accused persons.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that prosecution of the accused persons under POCSO could not be quashed merely on the ground that the prosecutrix had at a later stage agreed not to continue the proceedings.

“When an offence is made out against the accused irrespective of the fact that whether the prosecutrix was a consenting party or not, then certainly, the prosecution cannot be quashed merely on the ground that at a later stage the prosecutrix has agreed not to continue with the proceedings against the accused persons. Once the consent of the minor prosecutrix is immaterial for registration of offence, then such consent shall still remain immaterial for all practical purposes at all the stage.”

The Court further observed that the law recognized minors as vulnerable and lacking capacity to understand the consequences of their immature decisions and its repercussions.

For context, FIR was made against the accused persons wherein a minor girl had alleged rape and sexual assault. Such allegations were also made by the prosecutrix at the time of giving statements under Section 164, CrPC. Based on the investigation conducted by the police, a negative final report was submitted.

The Trial Court sent a notice to the prosecutrix against the negative report, on which she consented to not continue with any proceedings against the accused persons. Based on this consent, the trial court accepted the final negative report submitted by the police, and quashed the proceedings. Against this order, the present petition was filed.

It was argued that the petitioner was a minor girl whose consent had no value in the eyes of law, and hence the proceedings should not have been closed based on such consent.

After hearing the contentions, the Court accepted the arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner.

“…consent of minor is no consent in the eyes of law, hence, under these circumstances, the course adopted by the learned Special Judge, POCSO cases of summoning the minor petitioner was not proper and instead of summoning the victim, the learned Judge could have summoned her parents/ guardian to submit their objections against the Final Report (Negative) submitted by the Police in the FIR lodged by the minor petitioner.”

The Court stated that rape was a crime against woman's body and honour of a woman could not be put at stake by compromise or settlement.

It was further observed that in case any statement of closure was made by the prosecutrix, it should have been closely scrutinized by the Court and the victim should have been provided with competent and adequate legal assistance through DSLA to represent her best interests.

“…it is the right of every minor child to get assistance of the legal practitioner, as per Section 40 of the Act of 2012, but in the instant case, before passing the order impugned by which the FR has been accepted, legal assistance was not provided to the petitioner…”

Accordingly, the order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for passing appropriate orders after summoning parents/guardians of the minor victim, and to also provide legal assistance to them in case they were not represented by any lawyer.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Title: Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 242

Click Here To Read/Download Order