Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Based On Settlement Against Husband Married To A Minor

The Delhi High Court observed that sexual offences are not private wrongs amenable to settlement-based obliteration and said such circumstances call for a full-fledged trial, not an exercise in fact-weighing or credibility assessment under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

It was also observed that compromise or marriage cannot be a passport out of a sexual offence.

The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed, “The petition invites the Court to treat later marriage/cohabitation and present pregnancy as a foundation to bury a prosecution for grave offences. That approach would trespass upon settled principle: crimes of this order are not private wrongs amenable to settlement-based obliteration. Such circumstances call for a full-fledged trial, and not an exercise in fact-weighing or credibility assessment under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”

Advocate Mukesh Kumar represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

A Petition was filed seeking quashing of FIR registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The basis of the Petition was the settlement between the accused and the Prosecutrix.

The father of the Prosecutrix reported to the Police that her minor daughter was kidnapped by two individuals. When she returned to her parental home, the Medical Examination noted an alleged history of sexual assault and a positive pregnancy test.

The Prosecutrix supported the quashing of the FIR as the first petitioner was her husband.

Court’s Observation

At the outset, the Court noted that the Prosecutrix reiterated her support for the prayer of quashing, and confirmed that she is happily cohabiting with Petitioner No. 1 as his wife. She further disclosed that she is presently pregnant with their second child. On these assertions, it appears that the Prosecutrix has reconciled with her circumstances and desires to continue her relationship with Petitioner No. 1.

“While the Court has duly noted her statement and the realities of her present situation, it must also bear in mind that such subsequent developments do not ipso facto eclipse the nature of the offences alleged, nor dilute the statutory protections extended to children under the POCSO Act and the PCM Act”, the Court said.

Further, the Court emphasised that under the POCSO Act, consent was legally irrelevant. The Court observed, “When penetrative sexual assault results in pregnancy, the law deems it “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” [Section 5(j)(ii)], punishable under Section 6 POCSO. Marriage or cohabitation at a later stage does not erase the offence. The Court’s approach has been forthright: compromise or marriage cannot be a passport out of a sexual offence.”

Pertinently, the Court underscored that heinous and serious offences, especially those with an element of sexual assault on minors, are not ordinarily quashed on the ground of settlement, as such crimes are offences against society at large.

The High Court observed, “The petition invites the Court to treat later marriage/cohabitation and present pregnancy as a foundation to bury a prosecution for grave offences. That approach would trespass upon settled principle: crimes of this order are not private wrongs amenable to settlement-based obliteration. Such circumstances call for a full-fledged trial, and not an exercise in fact-weighing or credibility assessment under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”

It was held that the settlement or the later marriage/cohabitation, and the pregnancy cannot furnish a legal basis to terminate the prosecution for offences of this gravity. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CrPC was not attracted.

Accordingly, the Petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Akhilesh & Ors. V. The State of Govt of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Click here to read/download Order