Delhi High Court cancels case against accused in POCSO after recognizing a mutual relationship and marriage with the victim

The Court noted that the couple had two children and if the FIR is not quashed, it will impact them and their children’s lives.

The Delhi High Court, in the matter of Prem Kumar v The State & Ors, recently quashed an extant first information report (FIR) registered under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This judicial action was predicated on the observation that the accused had entered into matrimony with the complainant and subsequently bore progeny with her.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar rendered the order, discerning that the involved parties sustained a consensual relationship, notwithstanding familial dissent. The adjudication further acknowledged that the physical relations between the accused and the minor were established with the explicit consent of the latter.

The Court observed that the “mistake or blunder” has been committed due to “immature acts and uncontrolled emotions of two persons, out of whom one was a minor on the verge of majority at the time of incident”.

The court emphasized that failure to annul the FIR would subject the man to a minimum of ten years of imprisonment, adversely affecting the lives of the couple and their children.

“The mistake or blunder, which otherwise constitutes an offence, has been committed due to immature act and uncontrolled emotions of two persons, out of whom, one was a minor, on the verge of majority, at the time of incident as claimed by the state. The petitioner’s prosecution and conviction will lead to pain and tears in the eyes of the family members of both the parties and future of two families will be at stake, whereas, if the impugned FIR is quashed, it would serve the ends of justice and would bring joy to both the families and two minor children as well,” the Court said.

The First Information Report (FIR) in question was formally registered in the year 2017, initiated by the father of the minor girl. The minor, in her statement to the police, asserted that the sexual relationship with the accused was consensual, and subsequent to that, they contracted a lawful marriage at a hotel in Meghalaya. The couple, presently with two offspring aged five and one respectively, is central to this matter.

Taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case, Justice Bhatnagar opined that although Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) do not fall within the compounding ambit delineated by Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the discretionary power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is not circumscribed by the constraints of Section 320.

“It [High Court] can use its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs and criminal proceedings if deemed necessary based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, either to serve the interests of justice or to prevent the misuse of the court process. This power can even be exercised in cases where the offenses are non-compoundable, but the parties have reached a settlement among themselves,” the Court held.

Consequently, the First Information Report (FIR) was nullified.

Advocate Manish Kumar and Salman served as legal representatives for the petitioner, Prem Kumar.

The State was presented by its Standing Counsel, Sanjay Lao, along with advocates Shivesh Kaushik, Priyam Aggarwal, and Abhinav Kumar Arya.

Advocate Anand Ranjan represented the victim.