Delhi High Court Directs POCSO Accused To Do Community Service In Govt. Hospital, Quashes FIR With ₹50K Costs

The Delhi High Court while quashing an FIR against a POCSO Case accused with ₹50k costs asked him to do community service in a government hospital.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of an FIR filed under Sections 354/354C/506/509/384/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The single bench of Justice Naveen Chawla observed, "Having regard to the nature of allegations, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Petitioner to undertake community service as a measure of accountability and reflection. The Petitioner is accordingly directed to perform one month of community service at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital for a period of one month, i.e., from 1st June, 2025 to 30th June, 2025. The Petitioner shall report to the Medical Superintendent of Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital on 1st June, 2025 for instructions and assignment of duties. Upon completion of the said period, a certificate confirming the completion of community service shall be issued by the Medical Superintendent and the same shall be filed with the Registry."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Naresh while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Amit Ahlawat.

Facts of the Case

The Complainant became acquainted with the Petitioner in 2016 who was a senior student from the same school. The two began interacting via text and social media platforms, which gradually evolved into a personal relationship. In March 2017, the Petitioner allegedly began requesting the Complainant to share her private photographs. Despite her initial reluctance, she eventually succumbed to his repeated demands, the Complainant ultimately shared approximately four private photographs with him via Instagram.

Two months later, in May 2017, following a disagreement, the Complainant and the Petitioner ceased communication and mutually deleted the images and their chat history. However, later the Petitioner blackmailed the Complainant with the private images in exchange of money. In April 2018, one “A”, a Child in Conflict with Law, who was a friend of the Petitioner and also a student of the same school, approached the Complainant with similar demands and later even hacked her instagram account to post the illicit images. Out of fear, the Complainant transferred money to the CCL on several occasions. Eventually, her mother came across a message from the CCL on her phone, prompting the Complainant to disclose the entire sequence of events on 21st August, 2019 leading to the registration of the present FIR.

With the intervention of respectable members of society, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and the complainant decided not to pursue the present FIR against the Petitioner. In furtherance of this resolution, a Settlement Deed was executed

Reasoning By Court

The Court took note of the statement made by the complainant wherein she confirmed that the settlement was entered into voluntarily, and without any pressure, coercion, or undue influence.

It was not inclined to quash the FIR at the first instance as allegations were serious, involving the harassment of a minor girl, through exploitation. However after a detailed and careful interaction with the Complainant and her mother, the Court discovered that they have consciously chosen to move on from the incident for the Complainant was exploring matrimonial prospects. It noted that the both of them were of the view that the pendency of a criminal case may result as a serious impediment to her future and personal relationships

"The Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by the parties. It is true that while offences under Sections 354, 354C, 384 of the IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act are classified as non-compoundable those under Sections 506 and 509 IPC are compoundable with the permission of the Court, being offences affecting an identifiable individual. Ordinarily, allegations of this nature, particularly those involving the sexual harassment of a minor, would not merit quashing. However, the law is equally cognizant of the victim’s right to privacy, dignity, and closure. In appropriate cases, the Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC), may quash proceedings involving non-compoundable offences where the parties have voluntarily and meaningfully settled the dispute, and where the continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and would instead prolong trauma. In the present case, bearing in mind the overarching aim of facilitating rehabilitation and the Complainant’s express wish to put the matter behind her, the Court is of the view that no larger public interest would be compromised by allowing the petition," the Court observed.

Reliance was placed on Supreme Court's decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. and Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.. The Court emphasized that its decision is solely out of deference to the express wishes of the Complainant and in the interest of her privacy and recorded its disapproval of the conduct attributed to the Petitioner. T

"The allegations pertain to a deeply troubling pattern of coercion and intimidation directed at a school-going minor, including threats to publicly disseminate her private photographs in exchange for money. Such behaviour, if true, reflects a gross misuse of digital platforms and an alarming disregard for consent and personal dignity. Nevertheless, the Complainant has unequivocally expressed her desire to move on from this chapter, and has articulated social and emotional burden that the continued pendency of this criminal case may place upon her, particularly in the context of her future prospects, including marriage. Thus, the peculiar facts of the case warrant exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC), in order to secure the ends of justice with certain conditions," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Zihad Ahmed vs. State of NCT of Delhi And Anr (2025:DHC:4795)

Click here to read/ download Order