The Madras High Court has recognized that in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, where a genuine and voluntary compromise is reached between the victim’s guardian and the accused - particularly within a familial context - the continuation of criminal proceedings may be contrary to the child’s best interests. This judgment underscores that procedural rigidity must yield to substantive justice when the family unit seeks reconciliation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, D. Rajesh, is accused in Special Criminal Case No. 451 of 2025 before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Coimbatore, for offences under Sections 9(l), 9(n), and 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 67B(a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The allegations stem from conduct allegedly committed against his minor stepdaughter, a 12-year-old girl studying in the 8th standard at RVS Matriculation School, Sulur, Coimbatore.
Key Facts
- The victim is the biological daughter of the defacto complainant, Nagajothi, from her first marriage to Gnanasekaran.
- The defacto complainant separated from Gnanasekaran three years prior to the incident and began living with her two children and her grandmother.
- The petitioner, who was previously married and separated, entered into a relationship with the defacto complainant and married her. They lived together as husband and wife for approximately three years with the two minor children.
- The petitioner was financially responsible for the household, including the education and daily needs of the children.
- Six months before the incident, the petitioner allegedly began sending obscene photographs and videos to the victim’s mobile phone.
- On 17.08.2025, the petitioner allegedly made improper physical contact with the victim’s lips, chest, and private parts while she was alone.
- The victim disclosed the incidents to her mother, who then contacted the Child Helpline.
- A Child Helpline representative visited the home, interviewed the victim and the defacto complainant, and lodged a formal complaint.
- The police registered FIR Crime No. 7 of 2025, seized the victim’s mobile phone, and sent it for forensic examination.
- The forensic report confirmed the presence of obscene content on the device.
- The victim’s Section 164 CrPC statement was recorded, and statements were taken from the defacto complainant, her mother, Child Helpline staff, school principal, and health inspector.
- A charge sheet was filed listing 15 witnesses and supporting documents.
Procedural History
- 17.08.2025: Alleged incident of sexual abuse and transmission of obscene material.
- 18.08.2025: Complaint lodged via Child Helpline.
- 19.08.2025: FIR Crime No. 7 of 2025 registered by All Women Police Station, Karumathampatty.
- 20.08.2025: Mobile phone seized and forwarded for forensic analysis.
- 15.09.2025: Section 164 CrPC statement of victim recorded.
- 10.10.2025: Forensic report submitted confirming obscene content.
- 25.11.2025: Charge sheet filed in Special Court for POCSO Cases, Coimbatore.
- 12.12.2025: Trial proceedings commenced in Spl.S.C.No.451 of 2025.
- 24.03.2026: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS seeking quashing of proceedings.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contends that the allegations are false and motivated by marital discord. He asserts that he and the defacto complainant had a long-standing relationship of eight years, during which he provided full financial and emotional support to her and her children. The quarrels arose because he urged her to discontinue her beautician job due to irregular hours, leading to resentment from the children. The victim, influenced by this tension, allegedly fabricated the allegations. The petitioner further argues that the forensic report does not establish that he sent the content, only that it was accessible on the phone. He also highlights that the 164 statement is inconsistent, exaggerated, and uncorroborated by subsequent examination.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor maintains that the prosecution case is well-founded. The defacto complainant discovered the obscene material on her daughter’s phone, questioned the victim, and acted responsibly by involving the Child Helpline. The forensic evidence, the 164 statement, and the chain of custody support the allegations. The prosecutor acknowledges the current amicable relationship but argues that the seriousness of the offence under POCSO Act cannot be diluted by post-facto compromise.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.451 of 2025 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on grounds of abuse of process, false allegations, and the absence of any public interest in continuing the prosecution given the genuine reconciliation.
The Legal Issue
The central question is whether a criminal proceeding under the POCSO Act can be quashed by the High Court under Section 528 of BNSS where the victim, her guardian, and the accused have mutually and voluntarily reconciled, and there is no evidence of coercion or public interest in continuing the prosecution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Singh and State of Rajasthan v. Bhagwan Singh to argue that courts have discretion to quash proceedings where the parties have settled and the victim’s welfare is paramount. He emphasized that the POCSO Act is protective, not punitive, and that forcing a trial against the wishes of the victim and her guardian defeats its humanitarian purpose. He submitted that the forensic report does not prove transmission by the petitioner, and the 164 statement is unreliable due to lack of corroboration and possible tutelage.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that offences under POCSO Act are non-compoundable and sacrosanct, and that compromise cannot override the state’s duty to prosecute crimes against children. He cited State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh and K. Srinivas v. State of Telangana to argue that the victim’s consent is irrelevant once the state initiates prosecution, and that the gravity of the offence demands trial regardless of familial reconciliation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the relationship between the accused and the victim, noting that the petitioner was not a stranger but a stepfather who had lived with and supported the child for three years. The Court observed that the allegations arose from a domestic dispute, not from predatory conduct. The Court noted that the victim and her mother, after initial shock, have now affirmed that the allegations were exaggerated due to marital conflict and that they no longer wish to pursue the case.
"The victim, now 12 years old, has been subjected to the trauma of a criminal trial not because of any external predation, but because of a breakdown in her own family. Forcing her to relive the trauma through a trial, when both she and her mother have unequivocally withdrawn the complaint, serves no purpose other than inflicting further harm."
The Court distinguished this case from those involving strangers or institutional abuse, where public interest is unequivocal. Here, the state’s interest in prosecution must be balanced against the child’s psychological well-being and the integrity of the family unit. The Court found no evidence of coercion in the compromise, and noted that the petitioner continues to support the family financially and emotionally.
The Court further held that while POCSO offences are non-compoundable, the High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process remains intact. The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Singh and Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India to affirm that quashing is permissible where the compromise is genuine, the victim is not a minor in the sense of being exploited by third parties, and the proceedings are manifestly unjust.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The High Court quashed Special Criminal Case No. 451 of 2025 pending before the Special Court for POCSO Cases, Coimbatore. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The Court directed that all records related to the case, including the forensic report and 164 statement, be sealed and not used for any future purpose except in the event of a fresh complaint based on new facts. The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s continued support to the family shall not be construed as an admission of guilt.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compromise Can Justify Quashing in Familial POCSO Cases
- Practitioners may now argue that where the victim and guardian are family members and the accused is a close caregiver, genuine reconciliation may justify quashing under Section 528 BNSS.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate that the compromise is coerced or that the child remains at risk.
- Courts must prioritize the child’s psychological welfare over rigid procedural adherence.
Forensic Evidence Alone Is Not Conclusive
- Merely establishing that obscene content was present on a device is insufficient to prove transmission by the accused.
- Chain of custody and access logs must be rigorously examined to establish attribution.
- Absence of forwarding or direct evidence of sending may undermine the prosecution’s case.
164 Statements Require Corroboration
- A single 164 statement, especially from a minor influenced by emotional trauma or adult guidance, cannot sustain a conviction without independent corroboration.
- Failure to re-examine the victim or guardian after the initial statement may render the case vulnerable to challenge.
Non-Compoundability Does Not Bar Quashing
- The non-compoundable nature of POCSO offences does not eliminate the High Court’s power to quash proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction.
- Courts must distinguish between cases of stranger abuse and intra-familial disputes arising from domestic conflict.
