POCSO Offences Are Crimes Against Society, Cannot Be Quashed Based on Compromise/Marriage, Especially at an Advanced Trial Stage: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-07-22

POCSO Offences Are Crimes Against Society, Cannot Be Quashed Based on Marriage or Compromise: Himachal Pradesh HC

Shimla, HP – The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that heinous offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act are crimes against society and cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise or subsequent marriage between the accused and the victim. The court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh , emphasized that allowing such quashing would defeat the legislative intent behind the special statute.

The court dismissed a petition filed by two accused, Vinay Kumar and Sachin Adila, seeking to quash an FIR for rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR registered in September 2023 after a 16-year-old girl was found to be pregnant. Initially, she accused Sachin Adila of repeatedly raping her. During the medical examination, she disclosed that another man, Vinay Kumar, had also raped her. A subsequent DNA test on the aborted fetus confirmed Vinay Kumar as the biological father.

After the police filed a charge-sheet and the trial was underway, petitioner Vinay Kumar married the victim in April 2025. Based on this marriage and a subsequent compromise deed, the petitioners moved the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings, arguing the dispute was now private and its continuation would be an abuse of legal process.

Court's Analysis: No Room for Compromise in Heinous Crimes

Justice Virender Singh firmly rejected the petitioners' plea, basing the decision on three key grounds: the advanced stage of the trial, the nature of the offence, and the overriding purpose of the POCSO Act.

Advanced Stage of Trial: The court noted that the trial was nearly complete, with prosecution evidence already recorded. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in State of M.P. versus Laxmi Narayan (2019) , it held that High Courts should refrain from quashing proceedings based on a settlement when the trial is at such a mature stage.

Crime Against Society, Not a Private Dispute: The judgment underscored that offences under the POCSO Act are not private matters that can be settled between parties. > "The crime is against the society, as such, any person can put the criminal machinery into motion... Once, it has been held that the offences are against the State, then, it is the duty of the State to prosecute the offender," the court observed.

Legislative Intent of POCSO Act: Justice Singh extensively quoted Supreme Court precedents, including Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2024) , to highlight the legislative intent of the POCSO Act. The Act was specifically enacted to protect children from sexual exploitation and to ensure their healthy development in an environment of dignity. > The judgment stressed that "quashing of the proceedings... in POCSO cases, on the basis of the settlement, is against the legislative intent, behind the enactment."

Precedential Hierarchy

The petitioners had relied on a 2025 Supreme Court decision to support their case. However, the High Court applied the principle of judicial discipline established in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) , which mandates that when faced with conflicting judgments from benches of equal strength, the earlier decision must be followed. Accordingly, the court found the reasoning in the 2024 Ramji Lal Bairwa case to be the binding precedent.

Final Decision

Holding that the petition was not maintainable, the court concluded that the prayer to quash the FIR and trial proceedings could not be accepted. The dismissal reinforces the legal position that grave offences, particularly those involving the sexual abuse of children, cannot be nullified through private settlements, and the state's duty to prosecute offenders remains paramount.