The Delhi High Court held that proceedings under the POCSO Act can’t be quashed based on a compromise between the victim’s family and the accused. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, it noted such offences are heinous and have a serious impact on society.
No Compromise in POCSO Cases
The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings relating to offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot be quashed based on a compromise between the child victim or the victim’s family and the accused. Justice Sachin Datta observed while dismissing a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR and the proceedings arising from it based on a settlement stated to have been reached with the victim with the intervention of her family.
Heinous Offences with Societal Impact
The court noted that the case involved allegations of aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon a child by a person allegedly in a position of trust or authority. It observed that such offences are heinous and have a serious impact on society.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment, which held that although the High Court has inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where parties have settled their dispute, such power has to be exercised having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. The Supreme Court had specifically held that heinous and serious offences, including rape, cannot ordinarily be quashed merely because the victim or the victim’s family and the accused have settled the dispute, as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
Petition Dismissed, Merits to be Decided at Trial
Applying the principle, the Delhi High Court held that the child victim or the victim’s family cannot compromise an offence under the POCSO Act. It said that quashing the proceedings at this stage based on a compromise would defeat the object of the statute as well as the ends of justice. The court accordingly dismissed the petition.
At the same time, the court clarified that its order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, which would be decided by the trial court on the basis of evidence. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)