The Punjab and Haryana High Court has formally refused to quash a criminal case involving serious allegations of sexual harassment against minors, affirming that offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot be dismissed merely through a private compromise. Justice Neerja K. Kalson, presiding over the matter, underscored that the statutory framework governing crimes against children transcends individual disputes, serving a crucial role in safeguarding public interest and the mental well-being of the youth. The decision marks a significant reaffirmation of the judiciary’s stance that heinous or serious offences—particularly those involving mental depravity or the safety of vulnerable victims—must reach their logical conclusion through the trial process rather than through out-of-court settlements.

The case originated from an FIR registered on December 23, 2024, at the Bahuakbarpur Police Station in Rohtak, Haryana. According to the investigation, the petitioner allegedly targeted two minor girls, aged 11 and 13, who were returning home after purchasing groceries. The complaint stated that the petitioner intercepted the children, performed obscene gestures, and offered them money to accompany him. Frightened by these actions, the victims fled to their residence to inform their families, which subsequently led to the registration of the FIR under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Sections 126, 75(2), and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

By the time the petition reached the High Court, the accused sought to leverage a compromise deed executed on April 7, 2025, claiming that the intervention of community leaders and family members had resolved the discord. The petitioner argued that the FIR was the result of a misunderstanding and that the victims' guardians no longer desired to pursue the litigation. However, the state counsel firmly opposed this, highlighting that the investigative process had already moved past the preliminary stages. Crucially, statements from the minor victims had been recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before a Judicial Magistrate, and the prosecution had already framed charges, with four prosecution witnesses having completed their testimonies.

In analyzing the plea for quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)—now mirrored in the new criminal law regime as Section 528 of the BNSS—the Court looked toward established precedents concerning the inherent powers of the High Court. Justice Kalson referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others , which mandates that courts exercise extreme caution when considering settlements in matters of serious criminal nature. The court noted that while Section 482 preserves the power to prevent abuse of the process of law, this jurisdiction cannot be conflated with the power to compound offences, nor should it be applied to effectively negate the legislative intent of statutes like the POCSO Act.

The judgment emphasized that the nature of the offence and its impact on the collective conscience of society remain paramount. Addressing the argument of a private settlement, the Court stated, "The compromise effected between private parties cannot be permitted to override larger public interest or defeat the legislative mandate embodied under the POCSO Act." This perspective aligns with the broader legal doctrine that criminal acts involving minors are not to be treated as civil disputes, regardless of the willingness of the complainant to withdraw the allegations. The Court’s reliance on this principle serves as a warning against the dilution of protective laws through informal social mediation.

Furthermore, the High Court’s ruling drew upon the principles laid out in Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat , noting that offences involving mental depravity or those that strike at the foundational safety of children lack the "civil flavour" that might otherwise justify the quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court highlighted that the legislative intent of the POCSO Act is designed specifically to offer a robust shield to children, and any judicial tolerance for bypassing this through compromises could invite systemic abuse. Justice Kalson noted that in this specific instance, the prosecution had already gathered substantial incriminating material, and the trial had reached a point where the evidence had become robust.

The Court further clarified that while the inherent powers of the High Court are expansive, they must be used with significant restraint in matters involving serious societal ramifications. Invoking the ruling in Kapil Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi , the Court observed that though a court might examine whether sufficient evidence exists for a charge, it should be slow to dismantle a prosecution where the trial is well underway. The Court observed, "Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society." By refusing to quash the proceedings, the court ensures that the trial court remains the appropriate forum to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.

The dismissal of the petition effectively mandates that the criminal proceedings at the trial court in Rohtak must continue. The accused now faces the reality of a full-fledged trial, where the testimonies of the remaining witnesses and the evidence already submitted will determine the outcome. This case serves as a judicial reminder that the state’s obligation to protect minors is absolute and cannot be bartered away by private actors seeking to end litigation for the sake of local harmony. The judiciary has effectively signaled that where the safety of children is concerned, the process of law is the only legitimate pathway to resolution. The matter remains pending before the competent trial court, which will now proceed with the remaining prosecution evidence as scheduled in the ongoing criminal trial.