Quashing Case Of Child Marriage & Sexual Offences Over Settlement Would Grant 'Judicial Imprimatur' To Unlawful Conduct: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has said that quashing a case of child marriage and sexual offences over settlement between the parties would grant “judicial imprimatur” to the unlawful conduct which the Parliament seeks to deter.
“To quash a case of child marriage and sexual offences on the plea of settlement would, in effect, grant judicial imprimatur to unlawful conduct that the Parliament has explicitly sought to deter,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by two accused persons seeking quashing of an FIR registered against them over allegations of child marriage and sexual assault on a minor, on the ground that they had entered into a settlement with the prosecutrix.
The FIR was filed by the Prosecutrix's father who alleged his daughter aged 17 years went missing from the parental home in December, 2023, with a suspicion of kidnapping by two individuals.
He was recovered from the custody of one of the accused (petitioner no. 2) after which the MLC noted an alleged history of sexual assault and a positive pregnancy test.
In her statement to the police, the prosecutrix said that she had been in a relationship with the man for the past five years. In 2022, her grandfather got her married to another man (petitioner no. 1) after which she became pregnant.
In her statement before the Magistrate, the prosecutrix said that she had been residing at her matrimonial home since her engagement with her husband but in December 2023, she voluntarily went to Rajasthan along with Petitioner No. 2, where they began residing in a rented accommodation. She was then brought back by the Police on in January, 2024.
Appearing in person, the Prosecutrix told Court that she had no objection in the quashing of proceedings against both the Petitioners. She also said that she was married to the petitioner no. 1 and was happily cohabiting with him as his wife.
She further disclosed that she was presently pregnant with their second child and wanted to continue her relationship with her husband.
Refusing to quash the FIR, the Court said that while it had duly noted her statement and the realities of her present situation, it must also bear in mind that such subsequent developments do not ipso facto eclipse the nature of the offences alleged, nor dilute the statutory protections extended to children under the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
“Marriage or cohabitation at a later stage does not erase the offence. The Court's approach has been forthright: compromise or marriage cannot be a passport out of a sexual offence,” the Court said.
“Further, the PCM Act criminalises child marriages. Section 9 punishes a male adult marrying a child; Section 10 punishes those who perform, conduct, direct, or abet a child marriage. Whatever the civil status of the marriage (void or voidable in terms of the statute), the conduct remains penal where the bride is a child. To quash a case of child marriage and sexual offences on the plea of settlement would, in effect, grant judicial imprimatur to unlawful conduct that the Parliament has explicitly sought to deter,” it added.
Dismissing the plea, the Court noted that the Prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the sexual relationship with her husband and was found pregnant at recovery.
It added that the rigours of the POCSO Act squarely applied in the case, adding that the allegation attracted the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the enactment.
Noting that Sections 366 and 376 IPC and Sections 9 and 10 Prohibition of Child Marriages Act were also in play, the Court said:
“The petition invites the Court to treat later marriage/cohabitation and present pregnancy as a foundation to bury a prosecution for grave offences. That approach would trespass upon settled principle: crimes of this order are not private wrongs amenable to settlement-based obliteration. Such circumstances call for a full-fledged trial, and not an exercise in fact-weighing or credibility assessment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS).”
“In the result, the settlement, the later marriage/cohabitation, and the present pregnancy cannot furnish a legal basis to terminate the prosecution for offences of this gravity. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CrPC is not attracted,” it said.
Title: AKHILESH AND ORS v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI AND ANR