CHANDIGARH, JULY 31, 2025 — The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to quash a 2013 First Information Report (FIR) filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against a man accused of raping a 13-year-old girl, despite the fact that the accused later married the victim and had four children with her.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The FIR, filed by the victim’s father, alleged that the accused had enticed away his 13-year-old daughter and married her. The accused, through his plea, requested the High Court to quash the FIR citing a compromise between the parties and a misunderstanding that allegedly led to the case’s registration.
However, Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri categorically refused the plea, holding that such compromises in POCSO cases 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,” the Court observed.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF THE POCSO ACT
Justice Puri emphasized the core objective behind the POCSO Act—protecting minors from sexual abuse and exploitation.
“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.”
The Court clarified that statutory safeguards, including fixed minimum age for marriage and sexual consent, exist because minors lack the psychological maturity to give informed consent.
KEY OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT
The accused was apprehended from Bihar along with the minor victim more than four months after the FIR was registered.
Although granted bail, the accused was declared a proclaimed person in 2014 and was arrested again nine years later in 2023.
The trial is currently at the final stage, and the victim has supported the prosecution’s version throughout the proceedings.
Another FIR (No. 419 dated 06.06.2014) under Sections 363, 366A IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act is still under investigation.
FINAL VERDICT
Considering the facts and the specific nature of the offense under the POCSO Act, the Court dismissed the quashing plea:
“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,” Justice Puri ruled.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
Advocate Akshit represented the petitioner/accused.
Deputy Advocate General Surinder Kumar Dagar appeared for the State of Haryana.
Advocate Ashish Bansal served as Amicus Curiae.
Advocate Shivam Sharma represented the complainant.
