Back
POCSO Case Cannot Be Quashed on Settlement Even After Survivor Attains Majority:
In a significant ruling that underscores the protective framework of the , the has firmly held that criminal proceedings under the Act cannot be quashed merely because the accused and the survivor have arrived at a settlement—even if the survivor has since attained majority.
Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan , presiding over a single bench, dismissed a petition filed under seeking to an FIR and ongoing trial for . The decision reinforces the settled legal position that offences against children are not and that the in law.
Background: A Romance Turned Legal Nightmare
The case originated from an FIR registered on at , Gangtok , concerning an incident that occurred on . At the time, the survivor was a 17‑year‑old student, and the accused was around 19 years old. The two were classmates who had passed Class XII together in 2022 and later attended a training programme in Gangtok, where they engaged in a physical relationship that resulted in the survivor becoming pregnant.
According to the FIR, the survivor initially refused the accused’s advances but eventually succumbed to his persistent persuasion. She later decided to lodge the complaint after the accused delayed arranging medical help and her mother discovered the pregnancy. The child was subsequently born and adopted through the , and the survivor is now pursuing higher education.
During the pendency of the trial, on , the parents of both the survivor and the accused executed a . By then, the survivor had turned 20 and the accused was 22. The deed recorded that the families did not wish to pursue the case, fearing that a conviction would ruin the accused’s youth and future. The accused and the survivor, along with their parents, jointly approached the High Court to the proceedings.
Arguments: Sympathy vs. Legal Principle
The petitioners, represented by Legal Aid Counsel , argued that the reflected a genuine desire to move on. They emphasised that the relationship was consensual and romantic, and that the accused, barely 19 at the time of the incident, would face a draconian sentence of at least 20 years under —effectively destroying his life.
The State, represented by Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor , opposed the quashing. They relied on the well‑settled principle that POCSO offences are not and that the consent of a minor has no legal validity, regardless of subsequent events.
Legal Analysis: Binding Precedent Prevails
The court framed two key questions: (1) whether a compromise between the parents could be treated as a compromise between the accused and the survivor; and (2) whether the under could be exercised to POCSO proceedings on the basis of such a compromise.
On the first question, Justice Pradhan observed that while the deed was formally between the parents, the affidavits filed by all six petitioners—including the accused, the survivor, and both sets of parents—clearly indicated a mutual intention to settle. “The first question … is answered accordingly,” he held, effectively treating the petition as reflecting the parties’ genuine desire to compromise.
However, on the second question, the court found itself bound by the ’s recent pronouncement in Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (2024) . In that case, the had categorically stated:
“Therefore, in view of the settled position of law, in the facts of the case, even if the accused and the victim (who has now attained majority) were to come out with a settlement, the High Court could not have quashed the prosecution.”
Quoting this passage, the held that the power under —which is to —could not be invoked to proceedings for aggravated sexual assault under the or the , even on the basis of a compromise.
Key Observations: Acknowledging Harsh Realities
Justice Pradhan did not shy away from recognising the difficult circumstances of the case. He noted that the accused and survivor were in a love relationship and “indulged in physical relationship in youthful spirit, unaware of its future consequences.” He also recorded the petitioners’ submission that a conviction would cause the accused to “spend his youth inside prison” and hamper his rehabilitation.
Yet, the court emphasised that sympathy cannot override clear legal principles:
“This is so, even if the learned Counsel for the petitioners has been able to impress upon me that the punishment which may be meted out to the accused who indulged in voluntary sexual intercourse with the survivor with whom he was having a romantic relationship when she was almost seventeen and he nineteen is very harsh and may relegate his entire life in prison.”
The court also referred to the ’s observation in X vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department (2022) , where it acknowledged that “adolescents who engage in consensual activity may be unaware that sexual intercourse results in pregnancy.” This recognition, however, did not alter the legal position that the criminalises all sexual activity with a minor, irrespective of consent.
The Decision: Petition Dismissed, Door Left Open
Ultimately, the dismissed the petition, holding that the inherent powers of the High Court could not be used to the FIR and trial. The court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the for information.
In a parting observation, the court gave the parties the liberty to approach the of India if they wished to pursue further relief. This suggests that while the High Court felt bound by precedent, it recognised the exceptional nature of the case and the potential for the apex court to consider the unique circumstances.
The ruling sends a clear message: POCSO cases, involving sexual offences against children, cannot be resolved by private settlements. The legislative intent to protect minors—irrespective of subsequent majority or consent—remains paramount, and courts must adhere to that principle even when faced with compelling human stories.
