The Delhi High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings in a kidnapping and POCSO case despite the accused subsequently marrying the prosecutrix and having a child with her.
Justice Prateek Jalan held that the case did not fall within the “exceptional circumstances” required for exercising inherent powers to terminate proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
The Court was dealing with a petition filed by Sonu seeking quashing of FIR No. 269/2022 registered at Dwarka North Police Station initially registered under Section 363 IPC, with Sections 376 and 506 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act later added.
Background of the Case
According to the FIR, the prosecutrix, who was 16 years old at the time, had gone missing from her home in April 2022. Her father alleged that an unknown person had lured her away.
After the girl returned home, her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded, following which more serious offences including rape and provisions of the POCSO Act were added to the case.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that he and the prosecutrix had married on July 10, 2024, and a child was born from the marriage in June 2025. The petitioner contended that continuation of criminal proceedings would adversely affect their family life and the welfare of the child.
What Happened During the Hearing
Counsel for the petitioner relied heavily on the Delhi High Court’s recent ruling in Harmeet Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), where the Court had discussed circumstances under which POCSO proceedings could be quashed after compromise or marriage between parties.
However, the State opposed the plea. The prosecution informed the Court that the trial had already concluded, final arguments were complete, and the matter was fixed for pronouncement of judgment on May 11, 2026.
The State also pointed out that the petitioner had earlier filed a similar quashing petition, which he withdrew without liberty to file a fresh one on the same grounds.
The Court also observed that the bail condition restraining the petitioner from contacting the prosecutrix or her family members “has, even on the contents of the present petition, been violated with impunity.”
Court’s Key Observation
Justice Prateek Jalan observed that while courts possess inherent powers to quash non-compoundable offences, such powers must be exercised cautiously in serious offences like rape and POCSO matters.
The Court noted that in the present case, the prosecutrix had consistently supported the prosecution version both in her Section 164 CrPC statement and during trial testimony. The Court found this significant because it indicated that she had not opposed the prosecution “since inception.”
The judgment also highlighted the age difference between the parties. At the relevant time, the prosecutrix was 16 years and one month old, while the accused was over 21 years old.
The Court further remarked that the marriage took place despite a bail condition expressly prohibiting the accused from contacting the victim or her family.
Court’s Decision
Refusing to interfere, the Delhi High Court held that the matter did not disclose the extraordinary circumstances necessary for quashing proceedings under the POCSO Act. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
The Court also cancelled the next hearing date before it in view of dismissal of the petition.
Case Details Section
Case Title: Sonu v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 2001/2026
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Justice Prateek Jalan
Date: May 7, 2026
