P&H HC Dismiss Quashing of Complaint Against POCSO Offender, States’ ‘No Marriage or Compromise Would Dilute POCSO Offence’

POCSO Act Law Insider

Sakina Tashrifwala

Published on: 28 September 2022 at 17:57 IST

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that an offence under the POCSO Act, a special legislation, cannot be invalidated based on any settlement or marriage between the offender and the prosecutrix.

The bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal further stated that the accused’s later marriage to the prosecutrix/victim would not absolve the charge under the POCSO Act or Section 376 of the IPC.

“Subsequent marriage of the accused with the prosecutrix would not dilute the offence under the POCSO Act or under Section 376, IPC. The POCSO Act has been incorporated with the objective of protecting children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography.”

“If an accused is absolved of committing sexual excesses with a minor on the basis of settlement with the victim on her attaining majority, this would encourage an unhealthy trend and defeat the objective and spirit behind the legislation of POCSO Act.”

“Consequently, an offence under the POCSO Act, which is a special statute, cannot be quashed on the basis of any compromise or matrimony between the accused and the prosecutrix,” the High Court observed.

This statement by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is significant since several of the country’s high courts have lately rejected POCSO Act cases on the basis of compromise/matrimony between the victim and the offender.

While dismissing a POCSO FIR against a minor’s lover, the Meghalaya High Court emphasised that the Act’s requirements should not be used to break up a good family relationship. Such instances must be resolved with sympathy for the accused, who is in a consensual relationship with the child, who is nearly 18 years old in this case.

In March 2022, the Meghalaya High Court overturned a FIR and criminal proceedings in a POCSO case filed against a man, citing that the accused man and victim-wife were living together as husband and wife, and a child was born as a result of their marriage.

The Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh, on the other hand, emphasised that such situations of consenting or voluntary sexual intercourse with an adolescent girl by an adult man while living as spouses and where the wife gives birth to a child are complicated.

Similarly, the Karnataka High Court rejected a rape case filed against an accused last month after he married the prosecutrix during the course of the hearings and supplied acceptable documentation.

The Allahabad High Court recently overturned a FIR and criminal proceedings in a POCSO case filed against a man because the accused man and victim-wife (who was a juvenile at the time of the occurrence) married the applicant/accused out of her own free will and are enjoying a happy married life with him.

“To punish the offenders for a crime, as involved in the present case, is in the interest of society, but, at the same time, the husband is taking care of his wife and in case, the husband is convicted and sentenced for societal interest, then, the wife will be in great trouble and their future would be ruined. It is also in the interest of society to settle and resettle the family for their welfare,” the bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed as it quashed the rape-POCSO case against the accused.

The instant matter is being heard by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Accused Nardeep Singh Cheema has been charged with violating Sections 363, 376, and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012. He reportedly lured a juvenile girl and afterwards married her.

Following that, he filed the current case under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking to vacate the FIR. He also included a deed with his plea stating that the juvenile girl and her father-complainant both signed affidavits, suggesting a settlement between the parties.

It was also said that the married pair were living together and that their remarks in favour of the compromise had been recorded.

The state, on the other hand, maintained that the victim was indisputably a juvenile when she was seduced and has been retrieved from the custody of the accused petitioner, and that material placed on the record by the state reveals that she was sexually assaulted by the petitioner.

In light of this, the Court rejected the plea, refusing to dismiss the case.

Related Post