Serious offences under POCSO Act cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between parties.

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking to quash FIR Crime No. 4/2025 registered at Police Station Baraso, District Bhind.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 87, and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

The complainant, Balveer Singh, had reported his minor daughter missing from her maternal uncle's home, suspecting she was enticed away.

Subsequently, the parties filed applications (I.A. Nos. 11066/2026 and 11067/2026) seeking to settle the matter through a compromise.

The Principal Registrar verified that the compromise was voluntary.

However, unlike cited precedents, the petitioner and the prosecutrix had not entered into marriage.

1. Whether an FIR involving serious offences under the POCSO Act and BNS can be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS solely on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the complainant.

2. Whether the inherent powers of the High Court should be exercised to quash proceedings when the accused has not subsequentally married the prosecutrix, distinguishing the case from specific Supreme Court precedents.

The court applied Section 528 of the BNSS regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process.

It relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019), which establish that heinous or serious offences with social impact, particularly those against women and children, cannot ordinarily be quashed via compromise.

The court distinguished Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of U.P. (2025), which allowed quashing only when the accused and victim were happily married.

The court reasoned that while the compromise was verified as voluntary by the Registrar, it is insufficient to invoke inherent jurisdiction in cases involving the POCSO Act.

The court noted that POCSO is special legislation designed to protect children, and such crimes are "offences against society at large" rather than private disputes.

Unlike the precedent in Mahesh Mukund Patel, the petitioner here had not married the prosecutrix, placing the case on a different factual realm.

The court emphasized that quashing such proceedings would defeat the statutory purpose of protecting minors and would violate the settled legal mandate that serious or heinous crimes are not compoundable through private settlements.

The court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, finding the petition devoid of merit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.