Introduction:

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjeev Narula, quashed a POCSO case against an accused, directing him to perform one month of community service at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital and to pay ₹50,000 towards the “Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties” .

The case involved allegations under Sections 354, 354C, 506, 509, 384, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The accused was alleged to have harassed a minor school-going girl, including threats to disseminate her private photographs unless she paid him money .

Arguments:

During the proceedings, the complainant and her mother expressed their desire to move on from the incident, citing concerns about the social stigma and potential impediments to the complainant’s future matrimonial prospects due to the ongoing criminal case . They confirmed that no monetary compensation had been received or was intended to be claimed from the accused.

Judgement:

Acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, the court emphasized the importance of the victim’s right to privacy, dignity, and closure. Justice Narula stated that while such allegations would ordinarily not merit quashing, the unique circumstances and the complainant’s unequivocal desire to move forward warranted a different approach.

The court directed the accused to undertake community service from June 1 to June 30, 2025, at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital, with instructions to report to the Medical Superintendent for duty assignments. A certificate confirming the completion of service is to be filed with the court registry. Any absenteeism, default, or misconduct during the service period would be reported to the concerned authorities, potentially leading to the revival of the FIR.

Additionally, the accused was ordered to deposit ₹50,000 towards the “Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties” within three weeks, with a copy of the receipt to be placed on record. The court also mandated that the accused refrain from any form of contact with the complainant or her family.

The judgment underscores the court’s balanced approach in addressing serious allegations while respecting the victim’s autonomy and desire for closure. It highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring justice is served not only through punitive measures but also by facilitating healing and rehabilitation for all parties involved.