Consent of minor irrelevant under POCSO; non-compoundable sexual offences against minors cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC based on compromise or marriage promise.

JUDGMENT :

ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Applicant seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 14.03.2024 and the summoning order dated 03.04.2024 passed in Session Trial No. 16 of 2024, arising out of FIR No. 10 of 2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Almora, for offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Applicant has also prayed for compounding of the offences on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the Applicant and Respondent No.2.

2. The State’s case, as borne out from the FIR and the material collected during investigation, is that Respondent No.2, a minor girl aged about 17 years, was taken to the hospital by her mother after she complained of abdominal pain, whereupon medical examination revealed that she was pregnant. On the basis of the said information, the FIR came to be lodged on 24.01.2024 alleging that the Applicant had subjected the prosecutrix to repeated sexual intercourse. During investigation, the date of birth of Respondent No.2 was found to be 13.03.2007, thereby establishing that she was below the age of 18 years at the time of the alleged incident.

3. Upon completion of investigation, statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded, medical and forensic evidence was collected, and a charge-sheet was submitted against the Applicant for offences under Section 376 IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

4. The learned trial court took cognizance and summoned the Applicant, leading to registration of Session Trial No. 16 of 2024. During the pendency of proceedings, the Applicant moved the present petition asserting that the relationship between the parties was consensual, that both families have amicably settled the dispute, and that there is an intention to solemnize marriage once Respondent No.2 attains majority, and on that basis sought quashing of the criminal proceedings.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that the criminal proceedings have arisen out of a consensual relationship between the Applicant and Respondent No.2, who were known to each other and whose families were on cordial terms. It was argued that both families had mutually decided to solemnize the marriage of the Applicant and Respondent No.2 once she attains the age of majority, and that during this interregnum period physical relations took place, which later resulted in registration of the FIR.

7. Learned counsel contended that there was no element of coercion, force or exploitation and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

8. It was further submitted that the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties and their families, as reflected from the joint affidavits and the compounding application filed on record. Learned counsel argued that Respondent No.2 and her legal guardian do not wish to pursue the case any further and that the Applicant is facing incarceration, causing undue hardship to his family.

9. On these premises, it was urged that this Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet, the summoning order and the entire criminal proceedings in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court.

10. Per c