Delhi High Court Upholds Trial for Heinous Offences Against Minors Despite Settlement Claims
Court dismisses plea for quashing FIR under POCSO and Child Marriage Acts, emphasizing societal impact and necessity for full trial.
The Delhi High Court, in a landmark judgment on September 8, 2025, dismissed a plea to quash an FIR involving grave charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), reinforcing the principle that heinous offences, particularly those involving minors, demand a full-fledged trial irrespective of any settlements reached between the parties involved.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, presiding over the case, rejected the petition filed by Akhilesh and others, which sought to quash the FIR based on a settlement, subsequent marriage, and cohabitation with the prosecutrix. The FIR, registered in early 2024, included serious allegations such as kidnapping, aggravated penetrative sexual assault resulting in pregnancy, and child marriage.
The court emphasized that such offences are not merely private disputes but crimes against society that cannot be annulled by personal settlements. Highlighting the legal framework under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and corresponding provisions in the IPC and POCSO Act, the court underscored the inherent limits on quashing criminal proceedings in cases involving serious offences.
The court noted that the prosecutrix, a minor at the time of the incident, was pregnant when recovered, invoking the rigours of the POCSO Act. It dismissed the argument that later marriage and pregnancy could mitigate the seriousness of the offence, stating that these factors cannot erase the statutory violations.
Reiterating the Supreme Court's stance, the judgment highlighted that compromise or marriage cannot serve as mitigating factors in sexual offences. The court cited precedents, including Shimbhu v. State of Haryana, to bolster its decision, affirming that such offences require judicial scrutiny beyond personal settlements.
The court concluded that the extraordinary jurisdiction to quash proceedings is reserved for cases where allegations are patently absurd or constitute an abuse of the legal process. It maintained that the prosecutrix's support for the quashing was insufficient to override the statutory protections and societal interests involved.
All pending applications were disposed of, with the court directing the trial to proceed uninfluenced by its observations, ensuring justice through a comprehensive examination of the evidence. This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rights and protections of minors, reinforcing that the legal system will not condone compromises in such serious matters.
Bottom Line:
The Court held that heinous offences, such as those involving sexual assault on minors, cannot be quashed on the ground of settlement, marriage, or cohabitation, as they are offences against society at large.
Statutory provision(s): Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC; Sections 6 and 21 of the POCSO Act, 2012; Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
Akhilesh v. State Govt of NCT Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2787175
