The High Court can quash FIRs under the POCSO Act based on compromise between parties, prioritizing family welfare and the child's future.

ORDER :

Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the FIR No.0558/2022 registered at Police Station Shivdaspura, Jaipur City (South) for the offence under Section 363 IPC and later on for the offence under Section 363 IPC, Section 16/17 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 32(VA) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of this Court towards the affidavit of the respondent No.2/complainant dated 04.12.2022, would submit that she has stated therein that the FIR has been filed under some misconception of facts and she does not want to prosecute the matter further. He submits that in pursuance of direction of this Court order dated 27.09.2023, the parties have appeared before the Investigating Officer who has recorded their statement evidencing the compromise. He, therefore, prays that this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed and the FIR in question be quashed and set aside.

3. Although, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer; but could not dispute that the parties have appeared before the Investigating Officer and have submitted that the matter has been compromised and the complainant does not want to prosecute the matter further.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant, acknowledging the contents of the affidavit dated 04.12.2022, would submit that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed and set aside.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. From the material on record including the factual report dated 16.11.2023 furnished by Assistant Police Commissioner, Chaksu, Jaipur (South), it is apparent that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the complainant does not want to prosecute the matter further.

7. It is a settled legal position that the High Court is empowered under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings under the POCSO Act, 2012 on the basis of compromise between the parties. In the case of Juber Ali and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (06.10.2023- RAJHC), this court has held as under:-

"9. Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh and Prashant Bhartiya (supra) as well as in the case of this court in Dhabba Nath (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

10. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No. 160/2023 registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar Sadar, Distt. Jodhpur City West and the entire criminal proceedings pursuant thereto for offence under Sections 506, 376(2), 376(2) (n), 376D of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of POCSO Act qua the petitioners are hereby quashed."

8. Furthermore, in the case of Tarun Vaishnav v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (13.10.2022-RAJHC), which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 03.03.2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s). 1890/2023, this court held as under:-

"13. This Court is not oblivious of the legal position that in cases concerning sexual act with a minor, consent, if any, has no legal sanctity and it cannot be used as a defence. Needless to mention that this Court cannot and does not accord any approval or sanction to the sexual act of petitioner with the prosecutrix but then, it is a hard reality that their love affair has traversed beyond the legal and moral bounds, consequence whereof has begotten a child.

14. This Court cannot be a silent spectator to or turn its back on the distressed family. If the impugned FIR is not quashed, the petitioner will have to face incarceration for at least 10 years. The mistake or blunder which otherwise constitutes an offence has been committed due to immature act and uncontrolled emotions of two persons, out of whom, one is still a minor.

15. The petitioner's prosecution and convi