The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal held that offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act cannot be quashed based on the compromise or matrimony between the accused and the prosecutrix. (Nardeep Singh Cheema @ Navdeep Singh Cheema v. State of Punjab and others)
The Bench observed, "…offence under POCSO Act, which is a special statute, cannot be quashed on the basis of any compromise or matrimony between the accused and the prosecutrix."
Facts of the case
The petition was filed by a man under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR registered for offences under Sections 363 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), however, later on Section 376, IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) were also added.
He allegedly enticed a minor girl and subsequently married her after she turned 18. He filed a prayer in his plea indicating that the girl and her father have executed affidavits, reflecting a compromise between the parties, and therefore the FIR registered must be quashed.
Contention of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner while referring to the Marriage Certificate dated 19.09.2019 submitted that petitioner has performed marriage with “J” after she attained majority. He submitted that “J” as well as her father-complaint have executed affidavits, Annexure P-2 (colly), which reflect a compromise between the parties. He submits that the married couple is living together and their statements have been recorded in support of the compromise pursuant to order passed by this Court.
The State counsel on the other hand opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner is accused of sexually exploiting a minor. However, counsel representing the complainant-respondent No.2 and victim-respondent No.3 has supported the prayer made in the petition.
Courts Observation and order
The bench taking note of the Contention of the Parties remarked, "Facts reveal that prosecutrix was admittedly a minor when she was enticed and has been recovered from the custody of the accused- petitioner. Material placed on the record by the State shows that she has been subjected to sexual assault by the petitioner.
Subsequent marriage of the accused with the prosecutrix would not dilute the offence under POCSO Act or under Section 376, IPC. POCSO Act has been incorporated with the objective of protecting children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, pornography. If an accused is absolved of committing sexual excesses with a minor on the basis of settlement with victim on her attaining majority, this would encourage an unhealthy trend and defeat the objective and spirit behind the legislation of POCSO Act."
The bench dismissing the petition remarked, "Consequently, offence under the POCSO Act, which is a special statute, cannot be quashed on the basis of any compromise or matrimony between the accused and the prosecutrix.
Finding no merit in the prayer made, the petition is dismissed.
It is clarified that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall conclude the trial uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
