POCSO Act Cases Cannot Be Quashed If Parties Involved Compromise And Reach An Understanding - Allahabad HC

The recent decision of the Allahabad High Court stated that cases involving heinous crimes like rape and molestation of minors under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, cannot be resolved merely because the accused and complainant have come to an agreement. Justice JJ Munir, the single judge presiding over the case, explained that survivors of such crimes do not have the right to settle with the accused in a manner similar to compoundable offenses or civil cases. Consequently, the Court refused to accept a plea for the quashing of proceedings on the basis that the accused and the complainant had married each other.

Depending on whether the charge is proven or not, the accused may be acquitted or convicted.

In this present case, a widow filed an FIR in 2020 alleging that the accused, Om Prakash, befriended her and made false promises of marriage. Based on those promises, he had sexual relations with her and also molested her minor daughter with questionable intentions. Consequently, the accused was charged with rape, molestation, and other offenses under the Indian Penal Code as well as offenses against the complainant's daughter under the POCSO Act.

The complainant provided support for her case in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and her daughter also corroborated the allegations of rape and molestation. In August 2021, the complainant and the accused got married according to Hindu customs. Following this, the complainant submitted an application before the special judge stating that she no longer wished to pursue the prosecution and that the case should be disposed of on the basis of a compromise.

The accused filed a plea in the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings of the case. The accused's counsel argued that pursuing the case would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the Court's process. The Court, however, clarified that it is the responsibility of the State to pursue the prosecution and bring it to a logical conclusion. The judge emphasized that in cases involving such serious offenses, the priority of the Court is to uncover the truth behind the allegations.