“Denial of FIR Quashing in POCSO Case for Upholding Legislative Intent: Court of the Special Judge, Hamirpur, H.P.”
January 7, 2025 2025-03-02 15:04“Denial of FIR Quashing in POCSO Case for Upholding Legislative Intent: Court of the Special Judge, Hamirpur, H.P.”
“Denial of FIR Quashing in POCSO Case for Upholding Legislative Intent: Court of the Special Judge, Hamirpur, H.P.”
By Pradyumna Satish
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the quashing of FIR No. 44 of 2021. The FIR, registered at Police Station Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., pertains to alleged offenses under Sections 363, 354-A, and 506 of the IPC, along with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The proceedings related to the FIR are currently pending in Sessions Trial No. 62 of 2021 before the Court of the Special Judge, Hamirpur, H.P.
The petitioner, who initially filed the FIR as the complainant and father of the child victim, has now reached an amicable compromise in the matter. This compromise was made with the aim of safeguarding the future of the child victim. The petitioner contends that his daughter’s betrothal has been arranged, and the prospective in-laws have made it a precondition for the marriage that no litigation or FIR should be pending against her. Considering this, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the FIR to ensure that his daughter’s marital prospects are not jeopardized.
The petitioner has stated that the compromise was entered into willingly, without coercion or external pressure, and was motivated solely by the focus to secure the future marital life of the child victim. The Respondent, being married and from the same community, has also agreed to the compromise.
The Court held that the petitioner, as the complainant and father of the child victim, lacks the locus standi to seek the quashing of the FIR merely to protect the family’s honor or to ensure the victim’s future marital prospects. The Court posited that once the criminal justice system is set in motion, the complainant’s role becomes limited, as the offense under the POCSO Act is not just an individual grievance but a crime against society.
The Court further observed that granting such a request would contradict the legislative intent of the POCSO Act, which was enacted to provide stringent measures for the protection of children from sexual offenses. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., explicitly clarified that quashing POCSO proceedings based on private settlements undermines the Act’s objective of safeguarding children and addressing crimes of a serious nature.
Additionally, the Court warned that allowing such petitions could result in adverse repercussions where accused individuals might exploit settlements through undue influence, monetary inducements, or coercion to escape legal punishments and penalties.
The petition was dismissed on the grounds that quashing the FIR would undermine societal justice and contravene the legislative purpose of the POCSO Act. Further, the decision ensures that the integrity of the legal process is upheld and reinforces the principle that offenses under the POCSO Act are non-compoundable due to their impact on society at large.
Case Title: X v. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Citation: Cr.MMO 1298/2024
