Delhi High Court Lays Down Principles For Quashing POCSO Cases Where Victim Denies Actual Harm Due To Consensual Relations, Marriage

The Delhi High Court on Thursday laid down various principles for quashing of cases registered under the POCSO Act where the de-juré victim denies actual harm to her. Citing Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that while the law treats a minor as a victim (de-juré victim), Courts must assess whether any actual (de-facto) victim exists before allowing prosecution to continue.“…. This court is of the view, that though quashing of criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act is not anathema to the law, such quashing demands careful and sensitive consideration of the fact situation. When examining a plea for quashing of an offence under the POCSO Act based on the consent of a de-juré victim, the court must carefully evaluate the reasons as to why the victim disclaims any loss or injury to her and must record its satisfaction…,” the Court said. It however said that courts must be vigilant against offenders who use deceit, stratagem or dishonest device to obtain quashing of criminal proceedings in their favour. The Court emphasised that it is necessary to install strong guardrails and parameters for consent, for quashing of criminal proceedings concerning offences under the POCSO Act.The judge said that in such cases, Courts must be satisfied that in granting a no-objection to the quashing of criminal proceedings, the de-juré victim is genuinely acting on her own free will and volition and has not been misled, pressurised or deceived into offering such no-objection. It said that it also has to be seen whether the de-juré victim has taken a consistent stand in favour of closing the case from the inception of the criminal proceedings, and has disclaimed that she has suffered any loss or injury at the hands of the offender.The Court said that it must also be ensured whether marriage or other arrangement, based on which the offender and the de-juré victim are seeking closure of criminal proceedings, evokes confidence on the part of the court or does it appear to be a ruse or stratagem of the offender to evade conviction and punishment. Other factors to be borne in mind have been laid down as under:- Whether the parties have been living together as a family for a length of time. - Whether children are born to the parties whose future would also be impacted by a decision not to quash criminal proceedings. - Whether offender is alleged to have committed any violence or brutality on the de-juré victim. - What was the respective age of the offender and the de-juré victim at the relevant time. Justice Bhambhani emphasised that the principles are only suggestive and far from exhaustive and that before quashing any criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act, Courts must interact with the parties and arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the quashing is warranted on larger considerations of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law. “Ultimately, the decision to quash criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act must be founded on the best interests of the de-juré victim and the children, if any, born from the union of the parties,” the Court said. Justice Bhambhani passed the ruling while quashing a case registered against a man accused of offences under POCSO Act and rape. The prosecutrix was a minor, approximately 17 years, at the time of the relationship, while the accused was 22. The couple had married in 2024 and had a child in 2025. The FIR was not filed by the girl but was triggered by hospital authorities during childbirth, as mandated under the POCSO Act.The accused filed the plea for quashing of the FIR. The prosecutrix consistently stated she had no grievance from him, describing the relationship as consensual and expressing fear that prosecution would destroy her family. Quashing the FIR, the Court relied on various rulings on quashing of POCSO cases but said that none of them considered the aspect as to whether there was a de-facto victim in the picture who wanted the offender to be prosecuted. It added that the jurisprudential basis for the State being the prosecuting agency in criminal offences is to prevent a criminal prosecution from descending into an exercise in vengeance, where the victim goes baying-for-the-blood of the offender and to maintain objectivity, neutrality, fairness and a sense of proportion in prosecution of an offender. The Court said that the State should not adopt a retributive line of action when the de-juré victim says that she has suffered no loss or injury and does not seek to proceed against the offender.“To be absolutely sure, this court is not entering upon the realm of consent of a minor in relation to a POCSO offence; nor into any ex-post facto condonation of such offence. Though a crime can be reported at the instance of any complainant, who may not necessarily be the victim of the offence, in the opinion of this court it is yet central to a prosecution that there be a de-facto victim in the picture,” the Court said. It observed that prosecuting a...

Delhi High Court Lays Down Principles For Quashing POCSO Cases Where Victim Denies Actual Harm Due To Consensual Relations, Marriage

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

Delhi High Court Lays Down Principles For Quashing POCSO Cases Where Victim Denies Actual Harm Due To Consensual Relations, Marriage

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers