The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), after the petitioner relied on a compromise with the victim.
Justice Sachin Datta passed the order on September 22, 2026, holding that proceedings concerning offences under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed merely because the victim or her family has entered into a settlement with the accused.
Background
Anand Singh Rawat, aged about 49 years, approached the High Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 083/2022 registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri. The petition stated that a compromise had been reached with the victim with the intervention of her family. The trial was already at the stage of prosecution evidence.
The Court noted that the allegations concerned aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon a child by a person allegedly in a position of trust or authority. It observed that such offences have a serious impact on society.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which recognised the High Court's inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases but clarified that this power cannot ordinarily be exercised for heinous and serious offences, including sexual offences.
Quoting the Supreme Court, Justice Datta observed:
“Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.”
The Court further held that a child victim or the victim's family cannot compromise an offence under the POCSO Act, as quashing the proceedings on that basis would defeat the purpose of the legislation and the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court dismissed Anand Singh Rawat's petition. The Court clarified that its order should not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the case, which will be determined by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence.
Case Details
- Case Title: Anand Singh Rawat v. The State and Another & Anr.
- Case Number: CRL.M.C. 2042/2026
- Judge: Justice Sachin Datta
- Decision Date: 22 September 2026
-300x169.webp)
