The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday refused to quash a 2013 case under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) against a man who later married the victim and also had four children with her.

The victim was 13-year-old at the time of registration of case. Her father had alleged that the accused had enticed her away and married her. However, a plea by the accused before the Court said the matter was compromised and that the First Information Report (FIR) had been lodged on the basis of some misunderstanding.

Justice Jusgurpreet Singh Puri refused to accept the argument and said such compromises are unenforceable in law, illegal and also contrary to public policy.

“Although under Section 482 Cr.P.C (Section 528 of BNSS, 2023), the High Court has wide inherent powers which can be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice in case of abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice, however the present issue being domain specific where the allegations are pertaining to the offence of rape committed upon a minor girl attracting the provisions of POSCO Act, FIR and its consequential proceedings cannot be quashed based upon compromise while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C (Section 528 of BNSS, 2023). It is further held that such kind of compromises are unenforceable in law being illegal and also contrary to public policy,” it said.

In the decision dated July 29, the Court looked into the legislative intent behind the POCSO Act and said the rationale behind fixing the age of marriage and consent for sexual activity to a fixed statutory minimum is based upon the recognition that minors lack the requisite mental maturity and psychological competence to give informed consent.

“It must be clearly understood that the potential for manipulation or exerting undue influence by adults through various methods and multiple reasons occupying positions of trust, authority, or such a responsibility further enhances this concern by rendering the minor's ostensible consent to be suspicious in law,” it added. 

Thus, the bench stressed that while considering compromise in such cases, the Court should keep in mind the background of the legislative intent.

In the present case, the Court noted that the accused was apprehended from Bihar along with the victim more than four months after registration of the FIR. He was granted bail but was declared a proclaimed person in 2014 and then arrested after a gap of nine years in 2023, it added. 

“After the petitioner was charge-sheeted by the learned trial Court on 16.05.2014, another FIR was registered against him vide FIR No.419 dated 06.06.2014 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A IPC and Section 4 of POSCO Act pertaining to the same victim i.e. respondent No.3 which is stated to be still under investigation,” the Court further noted.

Further, the Court recorded that the trial in the present case is at the fag end and that the victim had supported the prosecution version during trial.

“Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case and the conclusion drawn by this Court pertaining to issue of law in the preceding paras, the present petition deserves to be dismissed,” it said, while rejecting the quashing plea. 

Advocate Akshit represented the accused.

Deputy Advocate General Surinder Kumar Dagar represented the State of Haryana.

Advocate Ashish Bansal served as Amicus Curaie in the case. Advocate Shivam Sharma represented the complainant.