The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, despite a compromise between the parties. Justice Neerja K. Kalson held that allegations involving misconduct against minor children cannot be treated as purely private disputes that can be resolved through a settlement.
The Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings, noting that the trial had already progressed substantially.
Background
The case arose from FIR No. 224, registered on December 23, 2024, at Bahuakbarpur Police Station in Rohtak district, Haryana. According to the complaint, an approximately 11-year-old girl and another minor girl, aged about 13, were returning home after purchasing groceries when the petitioner allegedly intercepted them, made obscene gestures and offered them money to accompany him.
The petitioner subsequently approached the High Court, seeking to quash the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of a compromise dated April 7, 2025. His counsel argued that the matter had been amicably resolved and that the complainant's family no longer wished to pursue the proceedings.
The State opposed the petition, submitting that statements of both minor victims had been recorded before a Judicial Magistrate and that the investigation had resulted in a chargesheet. Charges had already been framed, and prosecution evidence was underway, with four witnesses examined.
Justice Kalson emphasised that offences under the POCSO Act have implications beyond the immediate parties and cannot ordinarily be quashed merely because a settlement has been reached.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, the High Court reiterated that serious offences affecting society cannot automatically be brought to an end through a compromise.
The Court also relied on Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, which explains that courts must consider the nature of the allegations, their gravity and their broader societal impact when deciding whether to quash criminal proceedings.
Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi, the Court observed that the existence of sufficient material supporting the alleged offence is also relevant when considering such a request.
It further stated,
"The compromise effected between private parties cannot be permitted to override larger public interest or defeat the legislative mandate embodied under the POCSO Act."
The Court noted that the trial had advanced considerably and that the material collected during the investigation did not justify quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement.
Concluding that the seriousness of the allegations, the statutory purpose of the POCSO Act and the stage of the trial did not warrant intervention, the High Court declined to exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings.
Accordingly, Justice Neerja K. Kalson dismissed the petition. The Court clarified that its observations should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Case Details
- Case Title: Ashok v. State of Haryana and Others
- Case Number: CRM-M-23029-2025 (O&M)
- Judge: Justice Neerja K. Kalson
- Decision Date: May 27, 2026
