While not leaving even an iota of doubt in the mind of anyone on the key question of whether a POCSO Act offence can be quashed on the basis of compromise/matrimony between the accused and the victim, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has in an extremely laudable, landmark, learned and latest judgment titled Nardeep Singh Cheema @ Navdeep Singh Cheema v. State of Punjab and others in CRM-M-2270-2020 delivered as recently as on September 7, 2022 made it unequivocally clear removing all the lingering doubts on this all-important question while holding that an offence under POCSO Act, which is a special statute, cannot be quashed on the basis of any compromise or matrimony between the accused and the prosecutrix. It must be mentioned here that the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Suvir Sehgal also underscored that the subsequent marriage of the accused with the prosecutrix/victim would not dilute the offence under POCSO Act or under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This demonstrates that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has displayed zero tolerance towards such heinous crimes.
It bears mentioning without fail that this latest judgment assumes immense significance as recently some of the High Courts of the country have quashed POCSO Act cases on the basis of compromise/matrimony between the victim and the accused. Recently, we witnessed how the Meghalaya High Court in a recent judgment titled Kwantar Khongsit v. State of Meghalaya cited in 2022 SCC OnLine Megh 393 that was decided finally on August 10, 2022 while quashing a POCSO FIR against a minor’s partner had reiterated that the rigors of the Act may not be applied to break down a happy family relationship. It was held explicitly that such cases must be decided by taking a sympathetic view towards the accused, who is in a consensual relationship with the minor, in the instant case almost 18 years of age. The Court held that, “It would be an injustice to separate or to divide a well knitted family unit.”
At the very outset, this extremely commendable, cogent, composed and creditworthy judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Suvir Sehgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para itself that, “Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.145 dated 23.07.2019, registered for offences under Sections 363 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”), however, later on Section 376, IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”) were added, at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana, Annexure P-1, on the basis of the affidavits dated 16.12.2019, Annexure P-2 (colly).”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in the next para of this learned judgment that, “FIR, Annexure P-1, has been registered on the basis of statement of father of two school going minor girls, “J” (date of birth 13.09.2001) and “M” (date of birth 20.06.2004), names withheld, on the allegation that in the evening on 22.07.2019, they went to a market in connection with some school work, but did not return and despite search, they could not be located. Nardeep Singh Cheema @ Navdeep Singh Cheema, present petitioner, wanted to get married to “J”, but she refused and he often used to trouble her along with his friend, Gurpeet Singh, who was interested in marrying “M”. Complainant’s daughters had told him of these facts and he suspects that they have been enticed by Nardeep Singh Cheema @ Navdeep Singh Cheema and Gurpeet Singh.”
As we see, the Bench then points out in the next para of this learned judgment that, “While referring to the Marriage Certificate dated 19.09.2019, Annexure P-3, counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has performed marriage with “J” after she attained majority. He submits that “J” as well as her father-complainant have executed affidavits, Annexure P-2 (colly), which reflect a compromise between the parties. He submits that the married couple is living together and their statements have been recorded in support of the compromise pursuant to order passed by this Court.”
While elaborating more, the Bench then observes in the next para of this brilliant judgment that, “Status report by way of an affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police (South), Ludhiana has been filed on behalf of State-respondent No.1, which is taken on record. Upon instructions received from ASI, Balvir Singh, State counsel has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner is accused of sexually exploiting a minor. However, counsel representing the complainant-respondent No.2 and victim-respondent No.3 has supported the prayer made in the petition.”
It would be imperative to note that the Bench then points out in the next para of this noteworthy judgment that, “Heard counsel for the parties. In the status report filed by the State, it has been submitted as under:-
“5. That on 24.07.2019 the present petitioner and his co-accused Gurpreet Singh were arrested and both the prosecutrix were recovered from the petitioner and his coaccused. Statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of both the prosecutrix were recorded in which they stated that on 22.07.2019 the petitioner had taken respondent No.3 whereas co-accused Gurpreet Singh had taken the other girl “M” in a Gurudwara at Patiala where during the night the petitioner committed sexual intercourse with respondent No.3 and his co-accused committed sexual intercourse with the other girl. Statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of both the prosecutrix were got recorded before the Ld. Magistrate on 25.07.2019.
Examination of both the prosecutrix were got conducted from Civil Hospital, Ludhiana on 26.07.2019 and vaginal swabs were taken and were sent to the Chemical Examiner and in the reports of the Chemical Examiner of both the girls, it was mentioned that “spermatozoa were detected in the contents”. Accordingly, offences u/s 376 IPC and 4 POCSO Act were added on 31.10.2019.
6. That after completion of the investigation, challan/Final Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C has been presented against the present petitioner on 08.01.2020 and charges were framed on 29.02.2020. There are total 12 prosecution witnesses in this case, but no evidence has been led as yet and now the trial is pending in the Court of Ms. Ravi Inder Kaur Sandhu, Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and is now fixed for 21.09.2022. However, now on 19.09.2019, the petitioner and the prosecutrix/respondent No.3 have performed marriage as mentioned above.””
Be it noted, the Bench then specifically notes in the next para of this laudable judgment that, “Facts reveal that prosecutrix was admittedly a minor when she was enticed and has been recovered from the custody of the accused-petitioner. Material placed on the record by the State shows that she has been subjected to sexual assault by the petitioner.”
It is also worth noting that the Bench then minces no words to hold unambiguously in the next para of this robust judgment that, “Subsequent marriage of the accused with the prosecutrix would not dilute the offence under POCSO Act or under Section 376, IPC. POCSO Act has been incorporated with the objective of protecting children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, pornography. If an accused is absolved of committing sexual excesses with a minor on the basis of settlement with victim on her attaining majority, this would encourage an unhealthy trend and defeat the objective and spirit behind the legislation of POCSO Act.”
Most significantly, what constitutes the cornerstone of this refreshing judgment is then encapsulated in the next para wherein it is propounded that, “Consequently, offence under POCSO Act, which is a special statue, cannot be quashed on the basis of any compromise or matrimony between the accused and the prosecutrix.”
As a corollary, the Bench then further hastens to add in the next para of this remarkable judgment directing most convincingly and decisively that, “Finding no merit in the prayer made, petition is dismissed.”
Finally and for sake of clarity, the Bench then concludes by clarifying in the last para of this latest judgment that, “It is clarified that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall conclude the trial uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.”
All said and done, we thus see that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken the full, firm and final stand that the Courts can’t quash POCSO Act offence on the basis of compromise/matrimony between the accused and the victim. Of course, it merits no reiteration that what the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Suvir Sehgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has laid down so very clearly in simple, suave and straight words making it indubitably clear that POCSO Act offence cannot be quashed on basis of compromise/matrimony between the accused and the victim as that would only encourage an unhealthy trend and defeat the objective and spirit behind the legislation of POCSO Act as has been mentioned also most explicitly, elegantly and eloquently in this learned judgment. No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi