Delhi High Court Allows Family Of Minor Sex Abuse Survivor To Close Case

The Delhi High Court quashed a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case after the survivor and her family requested the court to close the case as they were seeking a marriage prospect for the girl and now wish to move on.

While quashing the case, the court has directed the accused to do community service for a month at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital, while also asking him to pay Rs 50,000 towards "Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties".

The court noted that ordinarily, allegations of this nature, particularly those involving the sexual harassment of a minor, would not merit quashing.

The accused, along with another minor boy (recognised as child in conflict with the law), had blackmailed the minor girl with her private pictures, which she had shared with the accused during their relationship in school. The accused, who was her senior in school, had allegedly extorted money from the girl. It was alleged that after the accused shared her pictures with another schoolmate of hers, he (child in conflict with law) hacked her Instagram and uploaded her private pictures on her account.

The court noted that the allegations against the accused are serious, involving the harassment of a minor girl through exploitation. "The facts narrated disclose a pattern emblematic of the darker undercurrents of the social media age, where technology is misused to exert control, induce fear, and compromise dignity. Considering this, at the outset, the Court was not inclined to quash the FIR in a perfunctory manner. However, after a detailed and careful interaction with the complainant and her mother, it emerged that they have consciously chosen to move on from the incident," the order read. 

The high court noted that the survivor's parents said that the complainant is currently exploring matrimonial prospects, and that the pendency of a criminal case may pose as a serious impediment to her future opportunities and personal relationships. 

"Her mother specifically submitted that ongoing criminal proceedings of this nature are likely to create social stigma and could undermine the family's efforts to secure a suitable match for the complainant," the order read.

A bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula quashed the case, stating that, "It is true that while offences under Sections 354, 354C, 384 of the IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act are classified as non-compoundable, those under Sections 506 and 509 IPC are compoundable with the permission of the Court, being offences affecting an identifiable individual."

"However, the law is equally cognizant of the victim's right to privacy, dignity, and closure. In appropriate cases, the Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC), may quash proceedings involving non-compoundable offences where the parties have voluntarily and meaningfully settled the dispute, and where the continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and would instead prolong trauma," the order read.

The FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 354, 354C, 506, 509, 384 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 

A settlement deed was entered into between the parties, as per which the complainant voluntarily resolved all her disputes with the accused and agreed to give no-objection to the quashing of the FIR. It was recorded that she had neither received any monetary compensation from the accused, nor intended to claim any.