Sikkim High Court Rejects Quashing of POCSO Case Despite Compromise Deed Between Parents

The Sikkim High Court has affirmed that the inherent powers of the court cannot be invoked to bypass the stringent protections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, regardless of a survivor's subsequent majority or the execution of a compromise deed.

A Single Bench of Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan heard the petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Bench was tasked with determining whether a criminal proceeding involving charges of aggravated sexual assault could be terminated based on a settlement reached between the parents of the accused and the survivor.

Key Takeaways

Inherent Powers Restricted in POCSO Cases

The court cannot use its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings for heinous offences like rape or aggravated sexual assault solely on the basis of a settlement.

Consent of Minor Irrelevant

Reiterating settled law, the Sikkim High court emphasized that factual consent in a relationship involving a person under 18 is legally immaterial under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Compromise by Parents Not Binding

A deed of compromise signed by parents cannot supersede the state's interest in prosecuting crimes against children, even if the survivor later supports the accused.

Future Rehabilitation Not a Ground for Quashing

Potential hardship or the loss of youthful years in prison for the accused does not justify the judicial termination of a trial for non-compoundable serious offences.

Court's Rationale on Settlements in Sexual Offences

The Court analyzed the nature of the allegations involving Section 5(j)(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It noted that the accused was 19 and the survivor was 17 at the time of the incident, which resulted in a pregnancy. While the petitioners argued that the act was a result of a romantic relationship and youthful spirit, the Sikkim High Court held that the law does not permit compounding such offences.

The Bench reiterated the Apex Court decision for similar cases “in view of the clear and unequivocal pronouncement of the Supreme Court that it is a settled position of law that even if the accused and the survivor who has now attained majority were to come out with a settlement, the High Court could not have quashed the prosecution under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Article 226 of the Constitution.” The Bench therefore rejected the petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which is pari materia to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Ratio

The High Court cannot exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash criminal proceedings initiated for offences of aggravated sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 or rape under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the basis of a compromise, even if the survivor has attained majority and supports the settlement, as such offences are heinous, non-compoundable, and affect the well-being of society.

Background

The case originated from an FIR lodged in 2023 regarding an incident in November 2022. The survivor, then a minor, alleged sexual intercourse with the accused, a classmate, which led to pregnancy and the subsequent birth of a child. During the pendency of the trial in the Special POCSO Court, the parents of both parties executed a 'deed of compromise' in August 2025. They contended that the parties were in a love relationship and that continuing the trial would ruin the 22-year-old accused's future.

The petitioners relied on the fact that the survivor, now 20, consented to the quashing. However, Justice Pradhan referred to Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2023 and Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Another vs. Union of India & Others ( "2024 INSC 790": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 794) to highlight that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 elevates the age of consent to eighteen, and any deviation for the sake of 'sympathy' would violate the mandate of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Sikkim High Court concluded that despite the 'romantic relationship' plea, the legal barrier against quashing such serious offences remained insurmountable at the High Court level.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL. M.C. No. 2 of 2026
Case Title: Rxxx Rxx & Others versus State of Sikkim
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Safal Sharma, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, Public Prosecutor; Mr. Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SIK) 66

Also Read: [Sexual Assault by Father] Can POCSO Case be compromised by Mother? Kerala HC Answers