Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 19064
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J
Victim – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3992/2022
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - POCSO Act
Act Referred
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: S.5/6, S.40
Code of Criminal Procedure: S.164, S.482
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Santosh Kumar Jain
For the Respondents: Jitendra Singh Rathore-PP, Anirudh Singh
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the petition and arguments regarding the invalidity of a minor's consent to close criminal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's review of the negative final report and the legal status of the minor victim. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. the principle that a minor's consent is immaterial and legally insufficient to quash proceedings in pocso cases. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. rape as a non-compromisable crime against the inherent dignity and body of a woman. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. quashing of the trial court's order and remand for proper legal assistance and guardian involvement. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
Order
Reportable
1. The instant misc. petition is listed before this Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 773/2026, decided on 15.01.2026), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in various matters, interim orders have been passed in criminal revision petitions and petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as a result of which trial relating to serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, dowry death, etc., could not proceed and remained stalled/held up due to the passage of considerable time.
2. Directions have been issued to this Court and other High Courts to take up such like matters which are pending since long, on priority and decide the same expeditiously without deferring the hearings to subsequent dates.
3. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 12.11.2021, passed by the Court of Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, No. 4, Alwar wherein the Final Report (Negative) submitted by the Police in FIR No. 261/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 376D IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act (Amendment), 2012, 2019 (for short ‘the Act of 2012’) has been accepted by the Trial Court holding that the complainant-petitioner (hereinafter referred as the petitioner) does not want any further proceedings in the present matter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a minor girl with whom the alleged offence of rape/sexual assault was committed by certain known persons, who are named in the FIR as well as in the statements of the petitioner recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Juvenile Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar wherein she has levelled categorically and specifically allegations of rape against these accused persons. Counsel submits that the matter was not investigated in a fair and impartial manner and the Police submitted the Final Report (Negative) in the aforesaid FIR lodged by the petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner was lodged in the Children’s Home i.e. Government Savitri Bai Phule Kanya Chhatrawas, Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar and a notice was sent to her against the aforesaid Final Report (Negative). Counsel submits that on the basis of the consent given by the petitioner, wherein she indicated that she does not want any proceedings to continue against the accused persons, the Final Report (Negative) was accepted by the Court below. Counsel submits that consent of the petitioner, who is a minor, is no consent in the eyes of law, hence, under these circumstances, the proceedings should not have been closed against the accused persons. Counsel submits that the learned Magistrate was duty bound to look into the allegations which were levelled against the accused persons in the FIR as well as in the statements of the petitioner recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but instead of doing so, the learned Magistrate has accepted the FR without giving any plausible reasons. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner but he is not i
