The High Court of Sikkim has refused to quash ongoing criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), despite a compromise between the families of the accused and the survivor.
Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, sitting singly, held that the High Court's inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) cannot be used to end prosecution for aggravated sexual assault or rape under the POCSO Act merely because the parties have reached a settlement.
Background
The petition sought quashing of FIR No. 113/2023 registered at Sadar Police Station, Gangtok, and the connected POCSO trial pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Gangtok.
According to the FIR, the alleged incident took place in November 2022 when the survivor was 17 years old. The FIR was registered under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 of the IPC.
The accused was stated to be about 19 years old at the time. The parties later relied on a compromise deed executed between the parents of the survivor and the accused. By then, the survivor had attained majority and had also joined the petition seeking quashing of the proceedings.
The High Court considered whether the compromise could legally bring the prosecution to an end. It noted that under the POCSO Act, a child means a person below 18 years of age, and that the consent of a child is no consent at all in law
The Court also examined Supreme Court decisions concerning consensual adolescent relationships and the limits of the High Court's power to quash POCSO proceedings.
“Even if the accused and the survivor who has now attained majority were to come out with a settlement, the High Court could not have quashed the prosecution under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution,” the High Court noted while relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents.
On the first issue, the Court held that the compromise deed executed by the parents could not be treated as a compromise between the accused and the survivor, although the affidavits filed by all the petitioners made their intention to settle the matter evident. On the second issue, the Court answered in the negative, holding that Section 528 of the BNSS could not be used to quash the POCSO and IPC proceedings on the basis of such a compromise.
The petition was accordingly rejected, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Special POCSO Court at Gangtok. The Court also observed that, if the parties are inclined, they may approach the Supreme Court for relief.
Case Title: xxxxxx vs. State of Sikkim.
Case Number: CRL. M.C. No. 2 of 2026
Judge: Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
Decision Date: 2 September 2026
