POCSO FIR Can't Be Quashed Merely Because Victim After Attaining Majority Entered Into Compromise With Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an FIR registered under the the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) cannot be quashed solely because on attaining majority, the victim chooses to enter into a compromise with the accused.

Justice Namit Kumar said, "...FIRs involving heinous crimes like rape, especially under POCSO Act, cannot be quashed on the ground that victim after attaining the age of majority has chosen to compromise the matter with the accused without any reason and further exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to quash an offence under Section POCSO Act would also go against the objects and reasons of the legislature."

The Court highlighted that, "in case such kind of 'Compromise Petitions' involving 'U-Turn' stands of the complainant(s)/prosecutrix falling under the category of 'Vulnerable Witnesses' are entertained in routine manner, the same will defeat the objects, reasons and purpose of the POCSO Act."

It further said that it will also lead to abuse of the process of law as well as misuse of State machinery resources, which were put in force, at the instant of complainant, from the date of registration of the FIR till date and that too, at this fag end of the trial.

These observations were made while hearing the compromise plea filed by the accused in a sexual assault case under under Sections 363, 366, 506 of IPC, 1860 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Court noted that the trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence, and the petitioner cannot claim quashing of FIR as a matter of right in non-compoundable offence.

Rejecting the argument that the prosecutrix and complainant have turned hostile, the Court said that "merely because the witnesses have turned hostile and settlement took place is not a ground to acquit or record acquittal of the accused. "

The prosecution has ample power to put leading question to the witness and if the testimony of such witness lends corroboration with other reliable evidence produced on record and considering the attending circumstances, Court may appreciate the evidence, it added.

Calling it "very strange as well as peculiar case," the judge pointed that at one point of time mother of the prosecutrix is lodging an FIR under the provisions of POCSO Act alleging rape of her minor daughter and at this fag end of the trial is turning hostile by deposing that the jurisdictional police had obtained her signatures on the blank papers on the pretext of completing some formalities, which ultimately led to registration of an FIR for commission of a heinous crime under POCSO Act.

Considering the "seriousness of allegations" the Court refused to quash the FIR.

Mr. Sauhard Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, D.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

Title: PXXXXX v. State of Haryana and others