When Equity Meets Statute: Delhi HC Denies Quashing POCSO Case Despite Victim’s Plea

In a significant ruling that highlights the friction between personal circumstances and the rigid framework of child protection laws, the Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered under the POCSO Act and the IPC, even as the victim reached adulthood and requested that the case be closed.

The Genesis of the Case

The petition, filed by Prince Kumar Sharma and his family, originated from an FIR registered in 2023 under Section 376 of the IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and sections of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The case came to light during an inquiry into a domestic violence helpline call, which revealed that the victim and the accused were living together as husband and wife.

Upon investigation, it was determined that the victim was approximately 16 years and 5 months old at the time of the alleged offences. Despite the victim’s statement before the Court—in which she, now a major and a mother, maintained that the relationship was consensual and that she wished for the proceedings to end—the Court declined to provide relief.

The Clash Between Consent and Statute

The petitioners sought the quashing of the FIR on the grounds of equity and the maturity of the relationship, which has since produced a child. However, Justice Sanjeev Narula emphasized that the legal position regarding the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act is unambiguous.

Unlike provisions under the IPC, where consent can be a defining factor, the POCSO Act operates on the premise that a person below 18 years of age lacks the legal capacity to consent to sexual activity. The Court noted that, under the existing legislative framework, the sexual act itself, once proven, constitutes the offence regardless of the victim's stated willingness.

Key Observations

The judgment offers a stark reminder of the limitations of judicial discretion when faced with clear legislative commands:

• On the nature of POCSO: “The Act does not treat absence of consent as a constituent element when the victim is a child. The law proceeds on the footing that a child lacks the legal capacity to consent to sexual activity.”
• On the mandate of the Court: “In the guise of doing equity, [this Court] cannot write in a judge-made exception for ‘near-majority, consensual relationships.’ To do so would be to cross the line from interpretation into legislation.”
• On the dangers of precedent: “To snuff out the prosecution at the threshold would risk sending a message that child marriages and sexual relationships with minors can be retrospectively sanitised by arranging a ceremony and continuing cohabitation.”

Judicial Reasoning: A Narrow Doorway

The Court acknowledged that the case presented a "hard dilemma" where the humanity of the family’s situation pulled in one direction, while the rule of law pulled in another. Justice Narula noted that while the victim’s composure and current family stability were evident, the Court could not retrospectively ignore the statutory requirements that define sexual crimes against minors.

Furthermore, the Court raised concerns about an unintended societal impact: granting the petition might be perceived as a judicial endorsement of underage marriages, potentially undermining the efficacy of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

The Final Decision

Dismissing the petition, the Delhi High Court made it clear that the trial must proceed to its logical conclusion. The Court clarified that its observations were restricted to the current petition and should not prejudice the trial court’s ultimate determination. For legal professionals and observers, the ruling stands as a firm reaffirmation that in cases involving the welfare and protection of minors, the legislature’s intent to impose strict criminal liability takes precedence over the subsequent voluntary choices of the involved parties.