By Varna Srinivasan  

The case with reference a compromise agreement between the petitioner and the respondent to quash the FIR registered and charges of Section 8 of the Prevention of Children Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita levied against the defendant. The petitioner states that the impending case under the POCSO Act as a “victim” creates a barrier between her and her ability to get married as she fears stigmatisation of herself and her family. Hence, the petitioner herself has come to a compromise with the defendant, who is also married to settle, close the case and quash the FIR.  

The Himachal Pradesh High Court first ruled that the role of the complainant in an FIR ends after the “criminal machinery” is in motion. Secondly, it also held that since the other party is the state, the onus to deliver sufficient justice with due process of the law is on the state. Given the nature of the FIR as well, under the POCSO Act, it is atrocious to give either party a locus standi to quash the FIR. The court also elaborated on the purpose of the special statute to ensure proper protection of children and to address the growing specific concern of sexual offences committed against children that has not been addressed prior to the statute. The learned judge also used precedent in the form of Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat & Ors. to state that it is not possible even for the complainant or the victim to withdraw a complaint alleging a grave and serious non-compoundable offence.  

Therefore, the court ruled that a child victim cannot move to quash an FIR in the pretext of protecting their family’s honour once the criminal machinery has begun.  

[Case Title: X v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.; Citation: ]  

Click here to read/download the judgement