Aman Gupta v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” (emphasis supplied)

5. In the considered view of this Court, offences of the nature alleged particularly those involving sexual offences involving children cannot be nullified merely on the basis of settlements between the parties. Such offences, in the true sense, cannot be regarded as offences in personam and the same constitutes a crime against the society at large. Offences of such nature cannot be extinguished only at the convenience of the parties or because the victim, at a subsequent stage, decides to marry the culprit. Any such compromise or marriage does not ipso facto efface the gravity of the offence or wipe out the seriousness of the allegations.

6. Prima facie, the fact that the victim gave birth when she was around 17 years of age is sufficient to make out the alleged offence under POCSO Act. Recently, in the case of Prasanjeet Mandal alias Denchu v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.: CRL.M.C. 8123/2025, this Court observed that High Court while exercising inherent jurisdiction or even writ jurisdiction cannot legalise the serious crime of sexual intercourse with a minor on account of “consent”. In that case, in similar circumstances, this Court had dismissed the petition seeking quashing of FIR. The relevant portion of the order is as under:

under 18 is criminalised per se, without importing “consent” as a constituent element once the victim is a child. Since the Parliament has fixed 18 as the age below which the law refuses to recognise sexual consent, this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot, in the guise of doing equity, write in a judge-made exception for “nearmajority, consensual relationships”. To do so would be to cross the line from interpretation into legislation. Subsequent developments in the relationship, however compelling in equity, the couple living together, the birth of a child, the victim’s present stance, cannot retrospectively legalise conduct which the law, at the time it occurred, treated as an offence. At this pre-trial stage, where the essential ingredients of the offence are disclosed and there is no patent abuse of process, there is no room for quashing the proceedings.

14. There is, moreover, a wider institutional concern. The present case does not involve only two young persons who chose to live together; the parents of both sides stand arraigned under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 on the allegation that they facilitated or condoned a marriage involving a minor girl. An order quashing the prosecution in such circumstances would almost inevitably be perceived as judicial endorsement of the notion that underage marriages can be insulated from legal consequences, so long as the parties subsequently present themselves as a settled family. Courts cannot ignore the possibility that what appears, on the surface, as voluntary acquiescence by a 16year-old may, in fact, be the product of familial pressure or community expectations, especially once pregnancy has occurred. To snuff out the prosecution at the threshold would risk sending a message that child marriages and sexual relationships with minors can be retrospectively sanitised by arranging a ceremony and continuing cohabitation. That would sit squarely at odds with the legislative purpose of both POCSO and the child marriage law, which is to deter early marriage and sexual exploitation of children.

15. The Court is not indifferent to the victim’s wish to protect her family. In fact, this Court is moved by the circumstances, but it is bound by the statute. This is, therefore, one of those hard cases where the pull of equity is strong, but the command of the statute is stronger. This Court, for securing the ends of justice, cannot carve out an exception to the statute merely because the victim describes the relationship as consensual.” (emphasis supplied)”

7. While this Court is sympathetic to the plight of the parties, in the opinion of this Court, such acts cannot be legitimised or condoned by exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023.

8. The present petition is, therefore, dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J NOVEMBER 28, 2025 ‘KDK’