The Bombay High Court has affirmed that in cases involving minor victims under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, where the guardian voluntarily withdraws complaint, no physical or sexual assault is alleged, and criminal intent is absent, the court may quash the FIR under its inherent powers. This ruling reinforces the principle that justice must serve the welfare of the child, not merely punish perceived transgressions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Mohammad Affaf Abdullah Nadoliya, was named in FIR No. 393 of 2025 registered at Kurar Village Police Station for offences under Sections 74, 78, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The complainant was the minor daughter of Respondent No. 2, who alleged that the applicant had made inappropriate advances. The applicant, a neighbour, claimed the incident arose from an innocent expression of affection, devoid of malice or sexual intent.
Procedural History
- 18 May 2025: FIR registered based on complaint by minor’s mother
- 4 February 2026: Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit before a notary, withdrawing all allegations and consenting to quashing
- 18 February 2026: Criminal Application No. 271 of 2026 filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom, arguing that the matter had been amicably resolved, no assault occurred, and continuation of proceedings would cause undue trauma to the minor victim.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the High Court to quash an FIR under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 when the minor’s legal guardian voluntarily consents to settlement, no physical or sexual assault is alleged, and criminal intent is demonstrably absent.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on the affidavit of Respondent No. 2, which stated that the incident was a misunderstanding, devoid of criminal intent, and that the applicant had tendered an unconditional apology. He cited Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat to argue that courts may exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings where continuation would amount to an abuse of process and defeat the ends of justice. He emphasized that the minor’s welfare, not punitive formalism, must guide judicial intervention.
For the Respondent/State
The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, conceded that the affidavit demonstrated resolution and absence of prosecutorial interest. However, it urged the court to impose exemplary costs to deter misuse of such settlements in serious offences involving minors, arguing that public interest in prosecuting sexual offences against children must not be undermined.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the allegations and found no evidence of physical contact, coercion, or sexual intent. It noted that the affidavit of Respondent No. 2 was executed voluntarily, without coercion, and explicitly stated that the minor’s welfare was the paramount consideration. The Court held that Section 528 of the BNSS grants the High Court broad inherent powers to quash proceedings where the continuation would be an abuse of process.
"The continuation of proceedings in the present case would serve no useful purpose and would only inflict unnecessary trauma on the minor victim, whose guardian has unequivocally expressed consent to closure."
The Court distinguished this case from those involving actual sexual assault or exploitation, noting that Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO require proof of sexual intent or contact, neither of which was alleged. It further held that the absence of malice, the neighbourly relationship, and the applicant’s age supported the conclusion that this was not a case of predatory conduct. The precedents cited by the applicant were found directly applicable, as they affirmed that courts must balance societal interest with individual justice, particularly where the victim’s guardian consents to reconciliation.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court quashed FIR No. 393 of 2025 and all proceedings arising therefrom, holding that inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS may be invoked to terminate proceedings in POCSO cases where no assault is alleged, criminal intent is absent, and the legal guardian voluntarily consents to settlement in the child’s best interest.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent of Guardian Is Decisive in Absence of Assault
- Practitioners must now treat the affidavit of a minor’s legal guardian as a material factor in quashing applications under Section 528 BNSS
- Where no physical or sexual contact is alleged, and the guardian consents voluntarily, courts are likely to prioritize the child’s psychological welfare over prosecutorial formalism
- This does not apply where there is evidence of penetration, grooming, or exploitation - those remain non-compoundable
Inherent Powers Are Not a Loophole, But a Safeguard
- Courts will scrutinize the voluntariness of consent; affidavits must be notarized and free from coercion
- The burden shifts to the State to demonstrate why quashing would undermine public interest
- This judgment reinforces that POCSO is not a blanket tool for moral policing - it requires proof of sexual intent or conduct
Costs as Deterrent Are Now Standard
- The Court imposed equal costs of ₹25,000 each on applicant and guardian, signaling that settlements must not be used to evade accountability
- Practitioners should anticipate cost orders in similar applications, even where FIR is quashed
- Costs serve as a check against frivolous or manipulative settlements while preserving judicial discretion
