Delhi HC refuses to quash case over alleged forced child marriage and sexual assault of a 17-year-old, despite settlement; trial to continue

The petitioner sought to quash FIR No. 152/2019, registered under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of the IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 9 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, together with the consequential proceedings, on the basis of a settlement with respondent no. 2.

The FIR alleged that respondent no. 2, then approximately 17 years old, married the petitioner on 8 March 2019, was taken to Ghaziabad, and was compelled to have physical relations with him; she approached the police on 12 March 2019.

A chargesheet was filed, and the petitioner was charged under the FIR provisions and Section 506 IPC. The petitioner submitted that the parties had since married and were living together; respondent no. 2 appeared before the Court.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings could be quashed under Section 528 BNSS on the basis of the parties’ settlement, despite the charges involving alleged offences against a minor under the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

2. Whether continuation of the prosecution was required by the gravity of the allegations and the public interest in enforcing those protective statutes.

Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, including in appropriate cases involving non-compoundable offences.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the power to quash on settlement depends on the facts and the nature and gravity of the offence; serious and heinous offences, including rape and offences affecting society, ordinarily cannot be quashed merely because the parties have settled.

Relying on Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan, (2025) 5 SCC 117, the Court stated that POCSO proceedings should not ordinarily be terminated on settlement, absent extremely compelling circumstances such as an ex facie mala fide prosecution.

The POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act serve protective purposes that cannot be displaced by a private compromise.

The Court considered the allegations and chargesheet, including that respondent no. 2 was approximately 17 at the time of the marriage and that the petitioner was 38, creating an age gap of approximately 20 years.

It also noted that respondent no. 2 approached the police at the first available opportunity.

Given the alleged sexual exploitation of a minor and the child marriage, the Court treated the case as involving grave offences with societal consequences, rather than a private dispute.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir and Ramji Lal Bairwa, it held that the subsequent settlement and the parties’ living together did not overcome the public interest in continuing the prosecution.

It declined to quash FIR No. 152/2019 or the consequential proceedings, holding that settlement could not justify terminating the prosecution in the circumstances alleged. The trial was directed to continue.