The Delhi High Court has delivered a stern legal reminder that marriage between an accused and a minor victim does not erase the criminality of an offense under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. In a recent ruling, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma emphasized that the POCSO Act is a specialized legislation designed to protect the integrity and well-being of children. The Court clarified that since the law does not recognize a minor's consent, any subsequent marriage or settlement between the parties cannot be used as a ground to quash criminal proceedings for such a heinous offense.
The ruling came during the hearing of a petition filed by a man seeking to quash an FIR registered against him for kidnapping and sexual assault. The petitioner argued that he and the victim had since married and were living together as husband and wife, suggesting that continuing the prosecution would disrupt their domestic harmony. However, the Court rejected this plea, noting that the legislative intent of the POCSO Act is to treat sexual acts with minors as non-compoundable. The Court observed that allowing such settlements could set a dangerous precedent, potentially encouraging offenders to use marriage as a shield against legal consequences.
Further, the High Court highlighted the distinction between adult consensual relationships and cases involving minors. While the judiciary sometimes takes a pragmatic view in cases of "romantic" elopements involving young adults, the Court maintained that when a clear violation of the POCSO Act is established, the "settlement" of the case through marriage is legally unsustainable. The bench reiterated that the State has a duty to prosecute such cases to uphold the law’s deterrent effect, regardless of the victim's current family status or her desire to withdraw the complaint.
This judgment reinforces the principle that child protection laws override personal laws and private settlements in the Indian legal system. By refusing to quash the FIR, the Delhi High Court has sent a clear message that the age of the victim at the time of the offense is the primary factor in determining criminality. The decision underscores that marriage is not a "remedy" for statutory rape and that the judicial system will continue to prioritize the protection of minors over the social or matrimonial arrangements made following a crime.