Cases involving kidnapping of children cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise: Delhi High Court

Cases involving kidnapping or trafficking of children are serious offence and cannot be compromised and quashed based on settlement arrived between the kidnappers and the child’s parents, the Delhi High Court recently said [Smt. Rubina & Ors v The State (Govt of NCT Of Delhi) & Ors]. .Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, therefore, rejected a plea to quash criminal proceedings against the accused in a case of kidnapping of a minor girl.The Court said that the settlement arrived at between the kidnappers and the child's parents was “concerning” and flagged the ethical and legal concerns around it. “This Court is of the opinion that the offence of kidnapping and trafficking of children are serious offences, having an impact on the society at large as well as on the child's well-being and development. This Court though takes note of the parent's decision to reach a settlement, it cannot condone a practice that treats a minor girl as a tradable commodity,” the judgment said..The child and her younger brother was kidnapped in 2020. However, the boy was later returned to the parents. In 2020, three accused Rubina, Nisha and Kapil Kumar were arrested in the case and the minor was recovered from them.The investigation revealed that the girl child was allegedly kidnapped by Rubina and then sold for ₹20,000 to Nisha and Kapil. The accused persons approached the Court seeking quashing of the criminal case on the ground that they had settled the matter with the minor’s parents. It was also submitted that Nisha and Kapil did not know that the child was kidnapped and a lenient view may be taken since due to medical reasons, they were not able to produce a child of their own. The parents of the minor girl have no objection if the couple legally adopt the child, the Court was further told. .However, the Court rejected the argument for “humanitarian approach” as it opined that the same would be not only against the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence but also legitimate expectations of the society to punish those who commit heinous offences.The Court said that the case brings to light the critical question of “commodification of children” which goes against the moral values and ethical standards of the society.It added that the idea that a girl child can be subjected to such a transaction where her custody is negotiated like property, challenges the very principles of rule of law..The bench termed it unfortunate that the parents of the children wanted her to live with the kidnappers.It added that the law cannot side with those who are on the opposite side of law. “The judges though faced with such dilemmas, have to still stand firm on the side of law; and while making every effort to balance the rights of victims, cannot lose sight of the larger implications of such settlements on the society as a whole,” the Court opined..The Court also rejected the argument that child has become attached to her kidnappers. “The fact remains that they [accused] had got the child kidnapped, made payment of money to separate the child from the biological parents and her siblings, which is a crime under the law. In case lenient view is taken in such cases and FIRs are quashed on the basis of such agreements, it would amount to defeating the principles of criminal law, and in the process weakening the rule of law.”The Court concluded that acceptance of such settlements could contribute to the perpetuation of a culture where the rights and dignity of children would be subjected to negotiation and compromise.Quashing criminal proceedings in such cases would send a message to society that the severity of crimes against children can be mitigated or overlooked through private agreements, the Court added.Thus, it dismissed the petition. .Advocate RPS Bhati represented the accusedAdvocate Naresh Kumar Chahar represented the StateAdvocate Ashok Kumar Mahoor represented the other respondents. [Read Judgment]