Compromise after majority no ground to quash POCSO FIR: Punjab and Haryana High Court

FIRs involving heinous crimes such as rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the victim, after attaining the age of majority, has chosen to enter into a compromise with the accused, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled. Justice Namit Kumar asserted that entertaining such petitions at the fag-end of a trial, based on belated settlements, would defeat the very object and purpose of the special enactment brought in to protect children from sexual exploitation.

Justice Kumar observed that quashing an FIR in a POCSO case on the strength of a compromise not only went against the statutory intent but also resulted in abuse of the process of law and misuse of State machinery.

Justice Kumar held ‘U-turn’ stands and statements in the trials of FIRs involving heinous crimes, especially POCSO Act, could not be permitted in a compromise quashing. “The courts as well as its settled legal procedures cannot be allowed to be used like tools by the litigant-parties just to twist and settle their interests, which undoubtedly leads to abuse the process of law,” the court added.

The petitioner had sought quashing of the FIR registered in June 2022 — for kidnapping and other offences under Sections 363, 366, 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act — on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The plea was filed when the trial was already at the stage of prosecution evidence.

Justice Kumar categorically rejected the plea, noting that the allegations in the FIR were grave — involving repeated rape of a minor girl in a hotel room, along with threats to silence her. “Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. By simply entering into a compromise, charges cannot be said to have been mitigated or that the allegations levelled by the complainant and prosecutrix regarding the alleged offence lost its gravity by any means,” he held.

Further rejecting the argument that the complainant-mother and prosecutrix had turned hostile during trial, the court reiterated that mere hostility of witnesses or execution of a compromise was not a ground for acquittal in offences under the POCSO Act. The court stressed that it was well within the prosecution’s powers to put leading questions to hostile witnesses and to corroborate their statements with other reliable evidence on record.

“This is a very early stage to come to the conclusion that if two witnesses have turned hostile then it would be a futile exercise on the part of the court to continue with such proceedings,” Justice Kumar held.

The court also expressed strong reservations over the belated compromise. “Surprising is the fact that this compromise is being effected after more than one year from the date of attaining the age of majority by the prosecutrix, perhaps might be for extraneous reasons best known to the parties serving their interests, but by no stretch of imagination, this compromise can be construed in the interest of society,” Justice Namit Kumar observed.

Referring to the mother of the prosecutrix turning hostile and claiming the police had obtained her signatures on blank papers, Justice Kumar asserted even if such claims were assumed to be true, the reasons for approaching the police and giving signatures at that point of time had neither been explained in the petition nor in trial court.

Terming it a “strange as well as peculiar case”, Justice Kumar concluded that no ground had been made out for exercising the court’s inherent powers.

Punjab