Back
'Ruse to Dodge Conviction?' Delhi HC Rejects POCSO Quashing Despite Marriage and Newborn
In a ruling that underscores judicial caution in sensitive child protection cases, the dismissed a petition to quash serious criminal proceedings under the , even as the accused and the former minor prosecutrix had married and welcomed a child. Justice Prateek Jalan, delivering the oral judgment on , stressed that post-offence settlements demand rigorous scrutiny to prevent .
Missing Minor to Marital Union: The Twisty Path to Court
The saga began on , when a 16-year-old girl (born ) vanished from her Delhi home, prompting her father to file FIR No. 269/2022 at under for kidnapping. She returned on her own, but her statement under unveiled allegations leading to added charges: and —rape of a minor.
The petitioner, Sonu (born , then 21), was arrested. Granted bail on , by the with a strict no-contact condition toward the victim or her family. Yet, the couple married on , and their child arrived on . Sonu, via CRL.M.C. 2001/2026 under ( akin to ), sought quashing based on this "settlement," marking his second such bid after withdrawing an earlier petition in 2025 without liberty.
Petitioner's Harmony Pitch vs. State's Stage Warning
Sonu's counsel, , leaned heavily on a recent Delhi HC precedent, , arguing the marriage, child, and prosecutrix's court presence (with her father) warranted closure for "marital harmony" and the infant's welfare. They portrayed the union as genuine volition, not coercion.
The State, via , fired back: the trial was at its "final stage"—evidence closed, arguments done, judgment slated for . She flagged the prior withdrawn petition (no changed circumstances), the blatant bail breach (marriage during bail defied no-contact rule), and the prosecutrix's initial supportive statements under and in court testimony, contradicting any early "no-injury" claim.
Precedent Puzzle: When Can POCSO Cases Fade on Compromise?
Justice Jalan dissected the law's evolution, nodding to Supreme Court landmarks like and , which permit quashing in exceptional cases but carve out heinous ones like rape—especially POCSO.
Central was Harmeet Singh , which this court authored guidelines for "" under POCSO: no automatic yes to marriages; courts must probe victim free will, consistency from case start, volitional acts, marriage authenticity (not "ruse"), cohabitation duration, child impact, violence evidence, and ages. Justice Jalan quoted Harmeet 's para 36 checklist verbatim, cautioning against "" by offenders.
Here, the scales tipped against quashing: the prosecutrix (16+1 month) wasn't consistently against prosecution from day one; her early statements backed the case. Sonu was adult (21+3 months); no proof of her initial volition. Bail violation was "," and trial was nearly over—no exceptional mercy.
Key Observations from the Bench
"Quashing of criminal proceedings under the ... demands careful and sensitive consideration of the fact situation. When examining a plea... the court must carefully evaluate the reasons as to why the victim disclaims any loss or injury..."
"Whether the 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 marriage or other arrangement... evokes confidence on the part of the court; or does it appear to be a of the offender to evade conviction and punishment."
"A of the case does not... permit such a course... This is thus not a case where the prosecutrix has consistently opposed the prosecution since inception."
No Quash: Trial to Proceed, Setting Guardrails for Future
"The petition is, therefore, dismissed."
The court cancelled the next listing, freeing the to pronounce judgment soon after.
This decision, echoing media snippets labeling it a check on "ruse to avoid conviction," signals tougher hurdles for late-stage POCSO settlements. It prioritizes child safeguards over post-facto family ties when victim stands waver, bail terms break, and trials near end—potentially guiding lower courts to shun hasty quashings, even amid weddings and babies.
