Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has held that criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the prosecutrix-victim.
Dismissing a petition filed by one Sanjeev Kumar, an accused under the POCSO Act, Justice Samit Gopal observed: “Once the consent of the minor prosecutrix victim is immaterial for registration of offence, then such consent shall still remain immaterial for all practical purposes at all the stages, including for compromise. Merely because the minor prosecutrix has later on agreed to enter into a compromise with the applicant, would not be sufficient to quash the proceedings under the POCSO Act,” the court added.
The accused-petitioner had sought setting aside of summoning and cognisance orders as well as seeking a stay on criminal proceedings going on before special judge, POCSO Act, at Azamgarh against him under Sections 376 (rape), 313 (causing miscarriage without women’s consent) and other sections of IPC and 3/4 of the POCSO Act.
The accused had moved this court on the ground that after the lodging of the FIR, the conclusion of the investigation and summoning of the applicant by the trial court for the alleged offences, a compromise had been entered into between the parties and hence, the pending case be decided in terms of the said compromise.
The counsel for the opposite party — the survivor also supported the petition of the accused.
On the other hand, opposing the plea of the accused-applicant, the counsel for the state submitted that the accusations against the accused revolved around subjecting the victim to sexual assault over a period of three years, with the victim being around 15-years-old during the commission of the alleged offence.
It was also contended that since the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, the charge sheet was filed under relevant sections, and the trial court, after finding a prima facie offence against the applicant, summoned him accordingly.
It was also argued that the petition should be dismissed since a compromise in a case of this nature could not be entertained.
