Misrepresentation of age by a victim does not absolve liability for serious offences under POCSO, which cannot be quashed based on compromise.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)

The present petition has been filed for quashing the FIR No. 159 of 2024 dated 14.11.2024 registered against the petitioner at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan (H.P) for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (“in short BNS”) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. It has been asserted that the parties have entered into a compromise on 30.12.2024. It was agreed that marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.5 would be solemnised after attaining the age of majority. The informant, the mother of the victim, also agreed to the compromise. The victim had misled the petitioner by saying that she was aged 18 years, and this fact was also mentioned in the status report filed by the police. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petition be quashed based upon the compromise effected between the parties.

3. I have heard Mr R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3-State and Mr Raju Ram Rahi, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5.

4. Mr R. L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the victim had misrepresented her age as 18 years. The parties have settled the matter, and the petitioner and the victim would solemnise the marriage after attaining the age of majority. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3-State, submitted that the misrepresentation made by the victim will not affect the liability of the petitioner. The offence committed by the petitioner is heinous and cannot be compromised. He prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. Mr Raju Ram Rahi, learned counsel for respondents No.4 & 5 adopted the submissions of Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. The plea taken by the petitioner that the victim told him her incorrect age will not help him. In a classic case of Reg. V. Prince., [L.R.] 2 C.C.R. 154, the prisoner Prince unlawfully took an unmarried girl, being under the age of sixteen years, out of the possession and against the will of her father. The Jury found that the girl went with the prisoner willingly; she had told the prisoner that she was aged 18 years, and the prisoner believed that she was aged 18 years, he had a reasonable cause for doing so. It was held that this finding recorded by the Jury would not help the prisoner. The act of the prisoner was unlawful per se and if the girl was found less than sixteen years, the representation by the girl or the belief of the prisoner were immaterial. Brett J observed:

“Upon all the cases, I think it is proved that there can be no conviction for crime in England in the absence of a criminal mind or mens rea. Then comes the question, what is the true meaning of the phrase? I do not doubt that it exists where the prisoner knowingly does acts which would constitute a crime if the result were as he anticipated, but in which the result may not improbably end by bringing the offence within a more serious class of crime. If a man strikes with a dangerous weapon, with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and kills, the result makes the crime murder. The prisoner has run the risk. So, if a prisoner does the prohibited acts without caring to consider what the truth is as to facts — as if a prisoner were to abduct a girl under sixteen without caring to consider whether she was, in truth, under sixteen — he runs the risk. So if he, without abduction, defiles a girl who is, in fact, under ten years old, with a belief that she is between ten and twelve. If the facts were as he believed, he would be committing the lesser crime. Then, he runs the risk