High Courts Cannot Quash POCSO & Rape Offences Based On Settlement Even In Cases Of Adolescent Romantic Relationships: Sikkim High Court
In the matter, a joint petition was filed by an accused, the survivor (now an adult), and their respective parents seeking to quash an ongoing POCSO trial.
The Sikkim High Court has affirmed that High Courts lack the jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable, heinous offences like aggravated sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, or rape under the IPC, merely because the parties have entered into a compromise or settlement.
Dismissing a petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, the Court held that inherent powers cannot be exercised to quash prosecutions for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under POCSO or rape under the IPC based on a compromise, even where the survivor has attained majority and the relationship was romantic.
A Single Bench of Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed, “Thus, in view of the clear and unequivocal pronouncement of the Supreme Court that it is a settled position of law that even if the accused and the survivor who has now attained majority were to come out with a settlement, the High Court could not have quashed the prosecution under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution. This is so, even if the learned Counsel for the petitioners has been able to impress upon me that the punishment which may be meted out to the accused who indulged in voluntary sexual intercourse with the survivor with whom he was having a romantic relationship when she was almost seventeen and he nineteen is very harsh and may relegate his entire life in prison”.
Advocate Safal Sharma appeared for the petitioner and Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent.
The case originated from an FIR registered in June 2023 alleging that in November 2022, a 19-year-old accused engaged in sexual intercourse with the 17-year-old survivor, leading to her pregnancy. The survivor subsequently gave birth to a child, who was placed for adoption through the Child Welfare Committee.
During the pendency of the trial before the Special Judge (POCSO), Gangtok, and after the prosecution concluded its evidence, the parents of both parties executed a deed of compromise in August 2025.
The compromise recorded that the parties were high school classmates involved in a romantic relationship who acted out of "youthful spirit" without realizing the legal ramifications. Seeking to protect the 22-year-old accused from serving a lengthy prison sentence, all six individuals, the accused, the survivor (now 20 years old), and their parents, jointly approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS (pari materia to Section 482 CrPC) to quash the FIR and proceedings.
While the Court acknowledged that the filing of joint affidavits demonstrated a clear intention among all parties to settle, it held that judicial precedent firmly prohibits the quashing of POCSO prosecutions on the basis of a compromise:
Citing binding Supreme Court decisions including Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (2024) and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), Justice Pradhan observed that statutory rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault are severe offences against society rather than private disputes. The Bench emphasized the Supreme Court's ruling that even if a survivor attains majority and consents to a settlement, High Courts cannot quash the prosecution under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS.
The Court pointed out that under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, any person below 18 years of age is defined as a child, and factual consent in adolescent romantic relationships is immaterial under the statutory scheme.
Addressing the plea regarding the severity of statutory minimum sentences (20 years for aggravated penetrative sexual assault), the Bench noted that personal sympathy or concerns over the accused spending his youth in prison cannot supersede explicit statutory mandates and Apex Court directives.
Dismissing the quashing petition, the Court granted liberty to the parties to approach the Supreme Court for relief if so advised.
Cause Title: Rxxx Rxx & Ors. v. State of Sikkim (CRL. M.C. No. 2 of 2026)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Safal Sharma, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel).
Respondent: Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, Public Prosecutor, Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor.