Can IT Act 66E & 67A Charges Against Minors Be Quashed on Settlement?

In the digital age, cybercrimes like privacy violations and sharing sexually explicit content have surged, often ensnaring even minors. A pressing question arises: Offence under Section 66E and 67A of IT Act Registered against Minor Accused can Quash on Settlement between Parties? This blog delves into the legal nuances, judicial precedents, and why settlements may not suffice for quashing such serious charges.

Whether you're a parent, legal professional, or concerned citizen, understanding these provisions is crucial. We'll break down the law, examine applicability to minors, and review court rulings that highlight public interest over private compromises.

Understanding Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act

The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), addresses cyber offenses with stringent penalties. Key sections include:

• Section 66E: Punishes violation of privacy by intentionally capturing, publishing, or transmitting images of a person's private areas without consent, under circumstances violating privacy. Penalties: Up to 3 years imprisonment and fine up to ₹2 lakh 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 1351 2018 0 Supreme(Chh) 724 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 651 2023 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 3554.

• Section 67A: Targets publishing or transmitting sexually explicit material in electronic form. Penalties are harsher: Up to 5 years (first conviction) or 7 years (subsequent), with fines up to ₹10 lakh 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 1351 2018 0 Supreme(Chh) 724.

These offenses protect individual dignity and public morality, making them non-compoundable in nature.

Applicability to Minors: No Blanket Immunity

Sections 66E and 67A apply to any person, including minors, with no explicit exclusion. While juvenile justice laws under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, offer protections like Juvenile Justice Boards for those under 18, serious cyber offenses aren't automatically shielded.

Courts prioritize minors' protection but hold minor accused accountable if they commit grave acts. Prosecution proceeds, but quashing on settlement faces hurdles due to the offenses' societal impact 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 681.

Judicial Approach to Quashing FIRs on Settlement

Under Section 482 CrPC, High Courts can quash FIRs to prevent abuse of process. However, for criminal offenses like those under IT Act Sections 66E and 67A:

• They are non-compoundable and involve public interest, not just private disputes.
• Courts rarely quash based solely on settlement, especially with minors involved, to deter exploitation and uphold morality 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 1351 2020 0 Supreme(Tri) 61.

Key Principle: Offences involving violation of privacy and sexually explicit material are not easily quashable on settlement, particularly when minors are involved, to uphold public morality and protect minors from exploitation 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 1351 2020 0 Supreme(Tri) 61.

Insights from Landmark Cases

Judicial trends reinforce reluctance to quash. Consider these precedents:

Cases Linking IT Act with Other Serious Offenses

In a case involving Sections 66E and 67A alongside IPC Sections 354A and SC/ST Act Section 3(1)(r), the court upheld charges despite arguments of no explicit caste mention. The derogatory content of a video can constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r)... even if caste is not explicitly... The appeal against pre-arrest bail dismissal was rejected, emphasizing cyberbullying's gravity 2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12193 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 427. Facts: Accused uploaded a derogatory video viewed by over 1 lakh, defaming a scheduled caste victim. Ratio: Derogatory content alone suffices for offense; bars under Sections 18/18A apply.

Another instance under Sections 66E, 67A, 67C IT Act with sexual exploitation allegations granted anticipatory bail considering gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the petitioner, and the maximum prescribed sentence for the alleged offence under Section 66E (3 years max) 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1042. Yet, conditions were strict, underscoring seriousness.

Contrasts with Compoundable Offenses

For contrast, offenses like NI Act Section 138 allow compounding on full payment and settlement: The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act can be compounded if the parties reach a settlement and the compensation is fully paid 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 666. But IT Act cybercrimes don't enjoy this flexibility.

Non-Quashable Heinous Offenses

In rape cases (IPC 376), courts refuse quashing despite settlements: The moot question... whether... FIR registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC can be quashed on the basis of a settlement... heinous and serious offences like rape... cannot be quashed

KAPIL GUPTA VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

A POCSO-linked case with Sections 66E and 67A highlighted sensitivity: FIR for assault to outrage modesty, privacy violation via videos used for blackmail leading to intercourse. Court urged swift action on victim's pregnancy termination but didn't quash, stressing monitoring 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 1051.

Minor-Specific Considerations

When minors are accused, courts balance rehabilitation with deterrence. In FIR No. 253/2019 under POCSO and Section 66E, proceedings continued despite arguments, prioritizing victim protection

HITENDRA BHARDWAJ S/O LATE SHRI UPENDRA NATH SHARMA vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Implications of Settlement in Minor Accused Cases

• Unlikely Success: Settlement doesn't automatically quash; courts weigh offense gravity, minor involvement, and public interest.
• Alternatives: Focus on defenses, plea bargains, or juvenile mechanisms, but expect resistance.
• Strategy Tips:
• Gather evidence of amicable resolution.
• Argue minimal role or non-serious nature (rarely successful).
• Seek bail, not outright quash.

Offences under Sections 66E and 67A of the IT Act registered against minors are generally not quashable solely on the basis of settlement, given their serious nature and involvement of minors 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 1351.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Typically, charges under IT Act Sections 66E and 67A against minor accused cannot be quashed merely on settlement. Courts safeguard public morality, victim rights, and deterrence, viewing these as offenses against society.

Key Takeaways:- Understand the non-compoundable nature of these cybercrimes.- Settlements help in negotiations but rarely lead to quashing.- Consult specialists for case-specific strategies like bail or defenses.- Promote digital literacy to prevent such incidents.

This post provides general insights based on legal provisions and precedents. It is not legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.

Stay informed on evolving cyber laws—share your thoughts below!