Punjab & Haryana High Court: POCSO FIR Cannot Be Quashed Merely on Subsequent Compromise

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a First Information Report (FIR) filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot be set aside merely because the victim, upon reaching adulthood, chooses to settle the matter with the accused.

Justice Namit Kumar emphasized that serious offenses such as rape under POCSO are not open to quashing simply because the survivor, once of legal age, enters into a private agreement with the perpetrator. He noted that exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to dismiss a POCSO offence would undermine the very objectives of the legislation.

The Court warned that routinely allowing “compromise petitions”—where a vulnerable complainant later recants or reconciles—would defeat the POCSO Act’s purpose. Such a practice, Justice Kumar observed, risks encouraging misuse of legal processes and wastes public resources mobilized from the moment the FIR is filed until the conclusion of trial.

These observations arose during hearings on a petition to quash an FIR in a case involving alleged sexual assault, prosecuted under Sections 363, 366, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code alongside Section 6 of the POCSO Act. With the trial currently in the stage of prosecution evidence, the petitioner argued for dismissal on the basis that the offence is non-compoundable. The Court rejected this, noting that the accused has no automatic right to have such an FIR quashed.

Addressing claims that the victim and her mother had turned hostile, the Court stated that witness hostility or subsequent settlement does not automatically entitle the accused to acquittal. It pointed out that the prosecution retains the right to lead evidence, and if the court finds the testimony credible in conjunction with other reliable material, it may still secure a conviction.

Justice Kumar described the case as “remarkable,” highlighting that the victim’s mother originally lodged the FIR, alleging her minor daughter’s rape, but later testified that police had tricked her into signing blank documents—allegations that prompted the FIR’s registration. Given the gravity of the charges, the Court declined to quash the FIR.

The petition was argued by Mr. Sauhard Singh for the accused, with Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur representing the State of Haryana and Mr. Ankit Yadav for the respondents. The matter is styled PXXXXX v. State of Haryana and others.