Offences under Section 377 IPC, Section 4 POCSO Act not private in nature: Delhi High Court refuses to quash FIR after compromise

Stating that offences under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act are not private in nature, the Delhi High Court refused to quash an FIR registered in spite of a settlement between the parties (Sunil Raikwar v. State)..Section 377 IPC deals with unnatural sexual offences and Section 4 POCSO Act deals with penetrative sexual assault..A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad stated in his order, ."The father of the victim cannot be permitted to settle the dispute with the accused. He is not the victim and the courts have to safeguard and protect the interest of children against onslaught by bad forces. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the accused is being prosecuted for an offence that shocks the value system of a society and this is not a matter that can be permitted to be settled as a compoundable minor offence. Deterrence to others committing similar offence is a must and they cannot get a signal that anything and everything can be compromised...The court cannot permit quashing of the FIR because the father of the victim has decided to enter into a compromise with the petitioner/accused.".We cannot lose sight of the fact that the accused is being prosecuted for an offence that shocks the value system of a society and this is not a matter that can be permitted to be settled as a compoundable minor offence.Delhi High Court.In the present case, the alleged offender was accused of sodomising a seven-year-old boy..After an FIR was lodged, on completing investigation, the Police filed a final report stating that there was enough material to proceed against the petitioner for offences under Section 377 IPC and Section 4, POCSO Act..However, due to the intervention of elders of the society and friends, the parties decided to amicably put an end to the disputes and differences..The accused thereafter moved a plea under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for quashing of the FIR. .The Court noted that while exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of a compromise, the High Court should scan the entire facts to find out the thrust of allegations and the crux of the settlement..Noting that the High Court has to exercise its power fairly and with caution in respect to cases which are not compoundable, the Court said, "...the High Court cannot mechanically quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences by exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC just because parties have decided to bury their hatchets. It is well settled that the power under Section 482 CrPC is to be distinguished on the powers which lies on the court to compound the offences compoundable under Section 320 of the Code.".The Court stated that the offences under Section 377 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act could not be permitted to be compromised, as quashing FIRs would not secure the interest of justice. It observed,."The offence alleged against the petitioner is grave. The POCSO Act was enacted only because sexual offences against children were not being adequately addressed by the existing laws and the purpose of the Act was to provide protection to children from sexual assault and sexual harassment and for safeguarding the interest and well being of children.".Thus, the Court held that the father of the victim could not be permitted to settle the dispute with the accused. ."An offence under Section 377 IPC committed on a child of seven years or an offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act shows the mental depravity of the offender and cannot be said to be private in nature...", the Court observed..The Court stated that the chargesheet, which recorded the statement of the child given to the investigating officer, showed that there was sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner/alleged offender. .Refusing to quash the FIR, the Court clarified that the present order was only a prima facie reaction and that the court trying the case was expected to decide the case without being inhibited by any remarks. .The Court also desisted from imposing any costs on the parties for filing a petition as it would cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner/alleged offender. .Advocate Amit Gupta appeared for the alleged offender. APP Kusum Dhalla appeared for State..Read the Order: