Even with a consensual settlement, the Pocso lawsuit cannot be dismissed: High Court of Allahabad

The Allahabad High Court has decided that the charges recorded under the Prevention of Children from Sexual charges (Pocso) Act cannot be set aside only on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the survivor, even if it declined to invalidate the proceedings commenced under the Act.

Judge Samit Gopal noted, “As the consent of the minor prosecutrix victim is immaterial for registration of offence, then such consent shall still remain immaterial for all practical purposes at all stages, including compromise,” dismissing a petition filed by one Sanjeev Kumar, an accused under the Pocso Act. To terminate the Pocso Act proceedings, the minor prosecutrix’s subsequent agreement to reach a settlement with the applicant (accused) would not be enough.

The accused petitioner had requested a suspension of the criminal proceedings against the accused that were being held before the special judge of the Pocso court in Azamgarh, as well as the setting aside of the summons and cognizance orders. At the Bilariganj police station in the Azamgarh district, a FIR was previously filed under Sections 376 (rape), 313 (causing miscarriage without women’s agreement), and other sections of the IPC and 3/4 of the Pocso Act.

The accused had petitioned the HC on the grounds that a settlement had been reached between the parties following the filing of the FIR, the conclusion of the investigation, and the applicant’s summons by the trial court for the alleged offenses, and that the ongoing case should be resolved in accordance with the settlement.

The state’s attorney opposed the accused-applicant’s plea, stating that the accused was charged with three years of sexual assault against the girl, the survivor of which was roughly 15 years old at the time of the alleged offense.

Additionally, it was argued that the charge sheet was submitted in accordance with the applicable provisions since the victim was a juvenile at the time of the occurrences, and the trial court called the applicant after determining that there was a prima facie crime against him. Furthermore, it was claimed that the petition ought to be denied since a compromise in a situation like this cannot be accepted.

In its April 2 ruling, the court said that the prosecution cannot be dismissed for offenses that are claimed to have been committed under a “special statute,” such as the Pocso or Prevention of Corruption Act, based only on an agreement reached between the victim and the perpetrator.