Parents' Compromise No Ground To Quash POSCO Case Against Absconding Accused; Stigma Belongs To Perpetrator, Not Victim: Delhi High Court - 2025-08-29

Legal News & Court Updates.

Delhi High Court Rejects Quashing of POSCO Case Based on Parents' 'Compromise', Orders Accused to Pay Costs

New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition to quash a rape and blackmail case filed under the POCSO Act, firmly stating that a compromise entered into by a minor victim's parents holds no merit. Justice Girish Kathpalia, while rejecting the plea, made a powerful observation that the "stigma has to be, not on the victim of the wrong, but on the perpetrator."

The court also took a stern view of the petitioner-accused, Altaf, who is currently absconding and has been declared a Proclaimed Offender, imposing a cost of ₹10,000 on him.

Case Background

The petitioner, Altaf, sought the quashing of FIR No. 391/2024, registered at PS Sarita Vihar. The charges against him include offenses under Sections 137 (Rape), 65(1) (Sexual intercourse by a person in a position of trust or authority), and 351 BNS (Voyeurism), along with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act. The FIR alleges that Altaf blackmailed the minor prosecutrix into a physical relationship after making a video of her. The petition for quashing was filed on the grounds that the victim's family had settled the matter with the accused.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's counsel argued that quashing the proceedings would be in the "interest of the prosecutrix" to save her from social stigma. It was further submitted that the parents of the minor victim had agreed to a compromise.

The State's counsel (Learned APP) vehemently opposed the petition, highlighting two critical facts: the victim was and continues to be a minor, and the accused, Altaf, is a Proclaimed Offender who is evading the legal process.

Court's Stern Rebuke and Reasoning

Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed the petitioner's arguments, terming them "obnoxious" and "completely devoid of merit." The court underscored that in cases of sexual assault, the victim alone has the right to pardon the wrongdoer, and since the prosecutrix is a minor, she is legally incapable of giving such consent.

In a pivotal observation on the argument of social stigma, the court stated:

"I find this argument obnoxious, to say the least. The stigma has to be, not on the victim of the wrong, but on the perpetrator of the wrong. There has to be paradigm shift in societal mindset by attaching stigma to the accused and not to the girl who underwent the horrid suffering by way of rape."

The court further dismantled the argument regarding the parents' settlement, clarifying that the parents were not the victims of the alleged crime.

"For, it is the minor girl, and not her parents who was wronged and suffered because of the alleged act on the part of the petitioner. It is only the prosecutrix, who could have pardoned the wrongdoer, that too in certain specific conditions."

The judgment emphasized that considering the serious nature of the allegations involving blackmail and rape of a minor, coupled with the petitioner's conduct of absconding from the law, quashing the case would not serve the interests of justice.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the petition, refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against Altaf. It imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the petitioner, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within one week. The court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the trial court to ensure compliance.