“Minors lack the mental maturity and psychological competence to consent to sexual acts.” With this categorical observation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an FIR under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot be nullified on the ground of compromise, even in cases where the accused subsequently marries the survivor and children are born from the relationship.
The proceedings stemmed from an FIR registered in August 2013, under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. The accused was charged with raping a 13-year-old girl and remained absconding for nine years before his arrest. He later approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR on the plea that he had married the survivor, and the couple was now parents to four children.
The accused’s counsel contended that the matter now stood resolved between the parties, highlighting that the survivor had married the accused and the couple were parents to four children. It was argued that allowing the prosecution to continue would adversely impact the children’s welfare, and that quashing the FIR would serve the ends of justice. The counsel urged the Court to adopt a “pragmatic and compassionate approach” in view of these developments.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri rejected the plea, holding that the statutory age of consent is fixed precisely because minors cannot be considered competent to consent to sexual activity. The Court explained, “This position emanates from a protectionist objective, whereby the law operates on the presumption that minors lack the capacity to fully apprehend or appreciate the nature, implications and potential consequences of indulging in sexual activities.”
The Court emphasized that the protective intent behind the POCSO Act would be defeated if offences under it were permitted to be compromised on private settlements, regardless of subsequent developments such as marriage or children.
Concluding the matter, the Court dismissed the petition and held that an FIR under the POCSO Act, along with corresponding IPC provisions, is not open to quashing on the ground of compromise. It emphasised that the statutory framework does not permit offences involving sexual assault on minors to be neutralised through private settlements between the accused and the survivor.
Picture Source :
