The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that even in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised where a genuine, voluntary compromise is reached between the victim and accused, particularly when the parties intend to marry and the families support the union. This ruling clarifies the limits of prosecutorial rigidity in cases involving minors who are not victims in the conventional sense but participants in consensual relationships.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Nageshwar, aged approximately 21 years at the time of the alleged incident in 2025, is accused of committing an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) against the victim, a female aged 17 years and 4 months. The incident allegedly occurred in the context of a consensual romantic relationship that culminated in the filing of FIR No. 70/2025 at Police Station Nagda, District Ujjain. The victim’s father filed the complaint, triggering criminal proceedings under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The case was registered as SC No. 11/2025 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagda.
Key Facts
- The victim was 17 years and 4 months old at the time of the alleged incident in 2025
- The petitioner was approximately 21 years old at the time of the incident
- The victim’s father filed the FIR on the grounds of statutory rape under the POCSO Act
- The petitioner was granted bail by the High Court prior to the hearing of this petition
- The father of the petitioner and the father of the victim have both filed affidavits affirming their consent to the marriage of the two individuals
- The parties are currently residing together and intend to marry upon resolution of the legal proceedings
- The compromise was verified by the Principal Registrar of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, who confirmed it was entered into voluntarily, without threat, inducement, or coercion
Procedural History
- 2025: Alleged incident occurred; FIR No. 70/2025 registered at Nagda Police Station
- 2025: Chargesheet filed; case transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Nagda as SC No. 11/2025
- Before May 2026: Petitioner granted bail by the High Court
- May 2026: Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR, chargesheet, and all proceedings
- 14 May 2026: Hearing before Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contends that the relationship was consensual, the parties are in love, and their families have mutually agreed to their union. He argues that continuing criminal proceedings serves no public interest and inflicts irreparable harm on the future of both individuals. The State, through the Government Advocate, opposes quashing, relying on Ramjilal v. State of Rajasthan to argue that POCSO offences are non-compoundable and gravity of the offence precludes compromise.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks:
- Call for record from the lower court
- Quashing of FIR No. 70/2025 (Annexure P/1)
- Quashing of Final Report (Annexure P/2)
- Dismissal of all ancillary proceedings in SC No. 11/2025
- Any other relief deemed fit by the Court
The Legal Issue
Can the High Court exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to quash criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act when a genuine, voluntary compromise is reached between the accused and the victim, both of whom are minors or near-adults, and their families support a future marital union?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Shivraj v. State (SLP(Crl.) No. 1857 of 2026), where the Supreme Court held that High Courts may quash POCSO proceedings where a bona fide compromise exists to facilitate a settled matrimonial future and avoid judicial futility. He emphasized that the victim was nearly 18, the accused was a young adult, and the compromise was verified by the Principal Registrar as voluntary. He also cited Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to argue that courts must consider the broader interest of justice and the future of the parties.
For the Respondent/State
The State’s counsel relied on Ramjilal v. State of Rajasthan [2024 INSC 846], where the Supreme Court refused to quash POCSO proceedings involving a 40-year-old teacher and an 11th-grade student. The State argued that POCSO is a special statute designed to protect children, and compromise cannot override statutory mandates. It contended that allowing quashing in such cases would undermine the legislative intent and set a dangerous precedent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a nuanced analysis of the Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence on compromise in POCSO cases. It distinguished Ramjilal on critical factual grounds: in that case, the accused was a 40-year-old teacher exploiting a minor student in a position of authority, whereas here, the accused and victim were near-equals in age, both young adults, and the relationship was consensual with familial consent.
"The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the State is based on a completely different set of facts than the present case. In the said judgment, the accused was more than 40 years of age and serving as a teacher, while the victim was a student of Class 11th; it was considering that specific aspect that the Court observed such a person should not be granted relief."
The Court then affirmed the applicability of Ayyub Malik v. State of Uttarakhand (2026 INSC 331), which recognized that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) may be invoked to quash proceedings where the parties have resolved their differences and continuation of the case would serve no purpose. The Court emphasized that the principle of judicial futility and interest of justice must guide the exercise of inherent powers.
It further noted that the compromise was not merely verbal but had been independently verified by the Principal Registrar, confirming the absence of coercion or inducement. The Court held that the age proximity between the parties, the voluntary nature of the compromise, and the family consensus to marry rendered this case distinct from those involving exploitation or abuse of power.
The Court concluded that the continued prosecution would not serve the protective intent of the POCSO Act, which aims to prevent exploitation - not to penalize consensual relationships between adolescents and young adults where no abuse of authority exists.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The High Court quashed FIR No. 70/2025, the Final Report (Annexure P/2), and all ancillary proceedings in SC No. 11/2025 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagda. The Court directed that all records related to the case be sealed and no further action be taken against the petitioner in connection with the impugned allegations. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compromise Can Override Rigid Prosecution in Near-Adult POCSO Cases
- Practitioners may now argue that POCSO proceedings are not automatically immune to quashing where the victim is close to 18 and the accused is a peer
- Voluntary compromise verified by court registry strengthens the case for invoking inherent jurisdiction
- Familial consent and intent to marry are now recognized as material factors in judicial discretion
Age Proximity and Absence of Power Imbalance Are Decisive
- Cases involving significant age gaps (e.g., adult teacher-minor student) remain protected from compromise-based quashing
- Where both parties are within 3 - 5 years of age and no authority relationship exists, courts are more likely to consider quashing
- Prosecutors must now assess whether the case involves exploitation or consensual conduct before proceeding
Judicial Futility Doctrine Gains Ground in POCSO Jurisprudence
- Courts may now weigh whether prosecution serves any public interest or merely inflicts harm on the parties
- The burden shifts to the State to demonstrate why quashing would undermine the POCSO Act’s objectives
- This judgment encourages early mediation and reconciliation in appropriate cases, reducing court burden and trauma to victims
