Child sexual abuse cases under POCSO Act cannot be quashed on compromise between parties: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently said that child abuse cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) cannot be quashed merely based on a compromise between the accused and the prosecutrix-victim. [Sanjeev Kumar v State].Once the consent of the minor prosecutrix is immaterial for registration of the offence, such consent shall remain immaterial for all practical purposes at all stages, including for compromise, the Court added.Justice Samit Gopal observed,"Merely because, the minor prosecutrix has later on agreed to enter into a compromise with the applicant, would not be sufficient to quash the proceedings. Since the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), 2012 is a Special Act, therefore, in view of the provisions of Sections 375 Sixthly of IPC, the consent of the prosecutrix is material. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution of the accused for offence under Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012 cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the prosecutrix has compromised the matter with the accused.".The Court was hearing a plea challenging summons and cognisance orders and seeking a stay on criminal proceedings against the accused under Sections 376 (rape) and 313 (non consensual miscarriage) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.The accused moved the High Court contending that after the first information report (FIR) was lodged, completion of the investigation and summoning of the accused by the trial court for the alleged offences, a compromise had been reached between the parties. Therefore, the pending case should be resolved according to this compromise.Counsel for the victim also endorsed the accused's plea..Counsel representing the State argued that the accusations against the accused centered on subjecting the victim to sexual assault over a span of three years. The victim was approximately 15 years old at the time of the alleged offence.It was further argued that the petition should be dismissed on the grounds that a compromise in a case of this nature cannot be entertained..The Court relied on a Supreme Court judgment which it was held that where the accused was facing trial for an offence punishable under a special statute, the prosecution cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.Furthermore, the Court emphasised that when an offence is established against the accused, regardless of whether the victim consented or not, the prosecution cannot be quashed solely on the basis of a later compromise by the victim."It is, thus clear that where the accused is facing trial for the offence of rape, then the factum of compromise under no circumstances can be of any help to him. They are crimes against the body of a woman. The honour of a woman cannot be put to stake by compromise or settlement," the Court added.With the above observations, the Court refused to allow the plea..Senior Advocate Prem Prakash and Advocate Doodh Nath Yadav appeared for the accused.Government Advocate Ramesh Kumar appeared for opposite party..[Read Order]