Marriage no shield under POCSO; HC refuses to quash rape FIR based on compromise
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that an FIR under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for a minor’s rape cannot be quashed on the ground of a compromise, even if the victim subsequently married the accused and had children. The court made it clear that such compromise was unenforceable in law and contrary to public policy, particularly where statutory offences against minors were involved.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri held that offences under the POCSO Act were statutory crimes against society, and “marriage with the victim, especially where she was a minor, cannot absolve the accused of criminal liability.”
The Court observed: “Normalising such compromise undermines the deterrent effect of the POCSO Act and sends a regressive message that child sexual abuse can be legitimised via subsequent marriage and erodes public confidence in child protection laws”.
The petition sought quashing of the FIR registered in 2013 on the ground of a compromise, but Justice Puri found the allegations too grave to be brushed aside, especially since the victim was just 13 years old when the offence was committed and had supported the prosecution during the trial.
“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 to sexual acts,” the Court observed.
“In fact, the competence of minors to consent is inherently ambiguous, even in circumstances where such consent appears to be given freely,” it said.
Referring to the deterrent theory of punishment, Justice Puri noted that the legal system’s response to serious offences must serve not merely retributive but also deterrent and protective objectives. “Punishment must serve the objective of deterrence and societal protection while ensuring adherence to the constitutional mandate of proportionality and the broader principles of justice,” the Bench asserted.
Justice Puri cautioned that permitting compromise in such cases would undermine the intent of the POCSO Act, erode public confidence in child protection laws, and send a regressive message that child sexual abuse can be legitimised via subsequent marriage. “Where a conflict arises between a protective legislative mandate, societal interest, public policy and social confidence on the one hand, and an individual case on the other, the former will prevail.”
Justice Puri took note of the fact that the girl had left her home willingly and married the petitioner, and that four children were born from the wedlock. Her father, the complainant, had also given his consent for compromise.
But Justice Puri pointed to aggravating facts: the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender in 2014 after absconding and was re-arrested only in December 2023—nine years later. Another FIR regarding the same victim was also pending. “The petitioner was granted regular bail during the course of trial but he misused the concession of bail,” the court noted.
Justice Puri added minors subjected to sexual offences suffered physical injuries, mental health issues, psychological stress, and lasting trauma, which compromise settlements cannot mitigate.
Acknowledging the High Court’s powers to prevent miscarriage of justice, Justice Puri ruled that “such wide inherent powers cannot be exercised to quash FIRs involving the rape of a minor girl attracting POCSO provisions,” and that such compromises “are unenforceable in law being illegal and contrary to public policy”.
Punjab