The POCSO Act mandates prosecution of sexual offences against children, emphasizing that quashing proceedings based on personal settlements undermines legislative intent.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1. Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) for quashing of FIR No.44 of 2020, dated 02.11.2020, (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Women Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’), as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending, before the Court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board Court, Solan, H.P., in Case No. 22/2 of 2021, titled as State Vs. Saurav.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash the FIR, in question. In the present case, petitioner No.1 is the accused, whereas, petitioner No.2 is the child victim.

3. The main ground, upon which, the quashing of FIR has been sought, is that during the pendency of the case, petitioners have solemnized the marriage on 21.02.2025. In this regard, they have relied upon the marriage certificate.

4. Not only this, petitioners have also pleaded that they have been blessed with two children.

5. Perusal of record shows that FIR, in question, has been lodged on the statement of respondent No.2, who, at the relevant time, was working as Legal-cum-Probation Officer, District Child Protection Unit, District Solan, H.P.

6. In this background, when, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, has been confronted with the maintainability of the present petition, then, learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court.

7. The FIR, in question, has been registered, under the special statute i.e. POCSO Act. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has enacted the special statute, i.e. POCSO Act, by keeping in view the rising number of cases, being committed against the children. Once, it has been held that the offences are against the State, then, it is the duty of the State to prosecute the offender, before the competent Court of law.

8. As observed earlier, the Legislature, in its wisdom, has enacted the POCSO Act, with an object to reduce the child abuse and protection of the children from sexual offences. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3403 of 2023, titled as Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2024 INSC 846, has elaborately discussed the provisions of POCSO Act and has held that the quashing of the proceedings, under Section 528 of the BNSS, in POCSO cases, on the basis of the settlement, is against the legislative intent, behind the enactment. Relevant paragraphs 10 to 12 and 31 of the said judgment are reproduced, as under:-

“10. Before dealing with the contentions on behalf of the respondents and also the submissions of the learned amicus curiae and the counsel for the intervenor, we think it only appropriate to refer to certain relevant aspects of the POCSO Act. As introduction to the POCSO Act, what actually actuated the Parliament to enact ‘POCSO Act’ has been stated thus:-

“Sexual offences against children are not adequately addressed by the existing laws. A large number of such offences are neither specifically provided with nor are they adequately penalised. Such offences against children need to be defined explicitly and countered through adequate penalties as an effective deterrence. This Act provides for protection of children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography with due regard for safeguarding the interest and well-being of children.”

11. Contextually, it is worthy to refer to the statement of objects and reasons for the enactment of the POCSO Act. It reads as follows:

“STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

Article 15 of the Constitution, inter alia, confers upon the State powers to make special provision for children. Further, article 39, inter alia, provide