Paridhi Arya
Published on: May 24, 2022 at 18:16 IST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Bench of Justice Pankaj Jain held that compromise either by parents or victim cannot be done in Cases where minor child suffered Sexual Crimes.
“The compromise effected by the child and/or her parents, compromising the dignity of the child cannot be raised to a status where it defeats the very object of the Act. Power granted under Section 482 CrPC (Power of High Court to quash an FIR) cannot be exercised to defeat the purpose of an enactment enacted in discharge of Constitutional mandate as well as obligation arising out of international conventions,” the Bench of Justice Pankaj Jain held.
The accused made a Plea seeking to quash FIR. The accused has already made a compromise with victim’s family who was charged under Section 452 (House Trespass) and 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 8 (Sexual Assault) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
The Court observed that the Preamble of the POCSO Act clearly signifies that sexual abuse and exploitation is a heinous crime and it should be addressed in the Court.
The Court denied to quash the FIR as through compromise the dignity of a child cannot be lowered through compromise either by parents of victim or by victim itself.
The Court directed Trial Court to complete and conclude the Proceeding within six months.
“Compromises in such cases have no place. If it is allowed, it would go against the Spirit of Law and result in Abuse of Children,” said Devi Sirohi, Academician and Former Head of the Chandigarh Commission for Protection of Child Rights. “There is a legal recourse to the offence and same should be allowed. If a compromise is recognized in such cases by courts, it would set a bad precedent.”