Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed the non-compromisable nature of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The Court emphasized that even if a compromise is reached between the accused and the minor prosecutrix-victim, proceedings cannot be quashed solely on that basis. This observation came in response to a plea seeking to set aside summoning and cognizance orders, highlighting the complexities involved in cases of sexual assault against minors.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The accused contended that a compromise had been reached between the parties after the lodging of the FIR, and urged the Court to adjudicate the case based on this agreement. However, opposing the plea, the state argued that given the severity of the allegations and the age of the victim at the time of the incidents, the charges under the POCSO Act were non-compoundable. The Court considered these arguments alongside the Supreme Court precedent in Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014), which established the non-compoundable nature of offences under special statutes.

Court’s Judgement:

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling, the High Court underscored that offences under special statutes like the POCSO Act cannot be quashed based on compromise alone. The Court emphasized that the nature of the offence, particularly in cases of sexual assault, precludes the possibility of compromise. Rejecting the plea, the Court upheld the summoning and cognizance orders, reaffirming the uncompromisable nature of offences against minors under the POCSO Act.