Delhi HC Rejects Quashing of Child Marriage & Sexual Offence Case, Warns Settlement Would Grant ‘Judicial Imprimatur’ to Unlawful Conduct
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, dismissed a plea under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking to quash an FIR alleging kidnapping, sexual assault of a minor, and child marriage under IPC, POCSO, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The Court emphasised that quashing such prosecutions on the basis of settlement would effectively confer “judicial imprimatur” on conduct that Parliament aims to deter. Justice Narula held that neither subsequent marriage nor pregnancy can dilute statutory protections for minors and directed that the prosecution continue through a full trial.
The case stemmed from an FIR lodged in December 2023 by the father of a 17-year-old girl in Delhi, alleging that his daughter had gone missing and suspecting two individuals of kidnapping her. The girl was recovered in January 2024 from the residence of one of the accused in Ganganagar, Rajasthan. A medical examination after her recovery recorded an alleged history of sexual assault and confirmed pregnancy.
In her statement under Section 161 CrPC, the girl stated that she had been in a relationship with one of the accused for about five years. In 2022, when her family discovered the relationship, her grandfather arranged her marriage to another man against her will. She stated that after this marriage she cohabited with her husband and became pregnant. In December 2023, she left her home voluntarily to join the earlier acquaintance in Rajasthan.
In her subsequent statement under Section 164 CrPC, she maintained that she had voluntarily gone with him and denied having physical relations with him during that period. Appearing before the Court, she supported the petition to quash the FIR, stated that she was married to the man chosen by her family, and was pregnant with their second child.
The police invoked offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping and sexual offences, Sections 6 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a minor, and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act for offences relating to her marriage while underage. The State opposed quashing, emphasising the seriousness of the allegations and the statutory protections for minors
Justice Narula recorded: “Subsequent developments do not ipso facto eclipse the nature of the offences alleged, nor dilute the statutory protections extended to children under the POCSO Act and the PCM Act.” The Bench further observed that under the POCSO Act, “consent is legally irrelevant where the ‘child’ is below eighteen years. When penetrative sexual assault results in pregnancy, the law deems it ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault,’ punishable under Section 6 POCSO. Marriage or cohabitation at a later stage does not erase the offence.”
Quoting the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shimbhu v. State of Haryana (2014) 13 SCC 318, the Court stated: “A compromise entered into between the parties cannot be treated as a mitigating factor warranting a lesser punishment. Rape is a non-compoundable offence, being an offence against society at large, and is not a matter that can be left to the discretion of the parties to compromise or settle.”
On the applicability of the PCM Act, the Court recorded: “The PCM Act criminalises child marriages. Section 9 punishes a male adult marrying a child; Section 10 punishes those who perform, conduct, direct, or abet a child marriage. Whatever the civil status of the marriage (void or voidable in terms of the statute), the conduct remains penal where the bride is a child.” The Bench further noted that quashing the case on settlement grounds would amount to judicial endorsement of unlawful conduct explicitly prohibited by law.
The Court recalled settled principles of law on quashing under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), observing that such powers are circumscribed by narrow limits. Justice Narula stated: “It is to be exercised sparingly, in cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, or where the prosecution manifestly amounts to an abuse of process.” The Court referred to the parameters set out in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) and reiterated that “heinous and serious offences, especially those with an element of sexual assault on minors, are not ordinarily quashed on the ground of settlement, as such crimes are offences against society at large.”
Based on the record, the Court noted that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged sexual relationship with Petitioner No. 1, and her pregnancy confirmed the applicability of Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Sections 366 and 376 IPC and Sections 9 and 10 of the PCM Act were also held to apply. The Court concluded that marriage, settlement, or subsequent cohabitation cannot form the basis to nullify prosecution for grave offences involving sexual assault and child marriage.
Justice Narula stated: “In the result, the settlement, the later marriage/cohabitation, and the present pregnancy cannot furnish a legal basis to terminate the prosecution for offences of this gravity. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CrPC is not attracted.” The Court directed that the petition be dismissed and all pending applications disposed of.
“Nothing in this order touches upon the merits of the evidence. The Trial Court will proceed uninfluenced by these observations and may consider any application for expeditious scheduling, victim-centric support under the POCSO framework (including counselling and compensation under the applicable victim compensation scheme), and any lawful interim requests, on their own merits.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Appearance not given.
For the Respondents: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State along with W/SI Akansha, Police Station Bhalaswa Dairy.
Case Title: Akhilesh and Ors. v. State Govt of NCT Delhi and Anr.
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 5383/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula
