Recently, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of FIR in a sexual assault case, holding that compromise between the accused and the victim’s family cannot override the interests of the minor prosecutrix. The Court emphasized that stigma must attach to the perpetrator, not the victim, and that the matter involves a proclaimed offender under the POCSO Act.
The case arose from FIR registered at PS Sarita Vihar, concerning alleged offences under Sections 137, 65(1), 351 BNS, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner, accused of blackmailing a minor victim by making a video and coercing her into a physical relationship, had been declared a proclaimed offender. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, claiming that the victim’s parents had settled the dispute.
The petitioner argued that the FIR should be quashed in the interest of the prosecutrix to prevent her from facing social stigma. His counsel submitted that the parents of the minor had compromised the matter and that continuing proceedings would unnecessarily harm the family. Whereas, the learned APP strongly opposed the petition, highlighting that the accused was a proclaimed offender and that the victim was still a minor, making quashing inappropriate.
The High Court rejected the petition, underscoring the fundamental principle that the stigma of a crime should attach to the perpetrator, not the victim. The bench observed, “The stigma has to be, not on the victim of the wrong, but on the perpetrator of the wrong. There has to be a paradigm shift in societal mindset by attaching stigma to the accused and not to the girl who underwent the horrid suffering by way of rape.”
The Court further noted that compromise by the parents cannot substitute the consent of the minor prosecutrix. The bench held that only the prosecutrix has the capacity to pardon the offender, and only under specific conditions, which were not present here. Given the gravity of the alleged offences, including blackmail and coercion, the court found no reason to quash the FIR.
The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000, to be deposited by the petitioner with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week. The order was directed to be sent to the trial court to ensure compliance.
Case Title: Altaf vs. State Govt of Nct of Delhi and Anr.
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 2363/2025
Coram: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Picture Source :
