In CRM-M-2270-2020-PUNJ HC- Subsequent marriage of accused with prosecutrix will not dilute offence under POCSO Act or u/s 376 IPC, rules P&H HC
Justice Suvir Sehgal [07-09-2022]

Read Order: Nardeep Singh Cheema @ Navdeep Singh Cheema v. State of Punjab and Others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, September 28, 2022:  The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), which is a special statue, cannot be quashed on the basis of any compromise or matrimony between the accused and the prosecutrix. 

The Bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal further held that the POCSO Act has been incorporated with the objective of protecting children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, pornography and thus, subsequent marriage of the accused with the prosecutrix would not dilute the offence under POCSO Act or under Section 376, IPC. 

“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 held. 

The instant petition was filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of an FIR registered for offences under Sections 363 and 366-A of the IPC, however, later on Section 376, IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act were added. 

Essentially, based on the statement of the victims’ father, an FIR was registered against the petitioner and his co-accused alleging that the minor daughters of the complainant were enticed by the petitioner and his co-accused while they were out for some school related work. The complainant also alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused were chasing his daughters for marriage despite their (daughters’) repeated refusals. Since the daughters didn’t return home, the present FIR was registered. 

While referring to the Marriage Certificate, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that petitioner and one of the daughters of the complainant got married after she attained majority. The Counsel further added that the parties were happily married and that a compromise was entered into between the parties. In support of this argument, the Counsel produced affidavits executed by the complainant and his daughter, reflecting upon the said compromise. 

The State counsel opposed the petition while submitting that the petitioner was accused of sexually exploiting a minor. However, the complainant’s counsel supported the petitioner’s case. 

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that the prosecutrix was admittedly a minor when she was recovered from the petitioner’s custody after being enticed by him. The Court also noted that she was subjected to sexual assault by the petitioner.

In light of the factual background of the case, the Court opined that the 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 asserted. 

Consequently, the Bench held that 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. 

Finding no merit in the prayer made, the petition was dismissed.