The Indian societal structure is such that people tend to interfere in another’s business and try help to sort out issues. Sometimes, this is extremely helpful as it can help reach amicable decisions, but to what extent can this be applied to remains a question. The Delhi High Court clarified that intervention of elders and friends in the society cannot be grounds for quashing an FIR filed under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
Facts
The Complainant in the given instance is the father of the child. The father returned home on November 20, 2020, from work to see the gruesome sight of his 7-year-old son who was in tears and was bleeding through his underwear. The boy revealed that he was sodomised by a person in the building. Investigation proved sufficient evidence for an FIR to be filed under Section 377 of the IPC and Section 4 of POCSO.
The father of the child, however, sought to quash the FIR, later on citing the intervention of elders and friends in the building who wanted an amicable decision to be reached. The father also filed an affidavit in the Court that stated that the disputes were settled and he had no objection towards the quashing of the FIR.
Analysis
The Court took into consideration various former judgements such as State of Maharashtra v Vikram Anantrai Doshi ((2014) 15 SCC 29), Narinder Singh v State of Punjab ((2014) 6 SCC 466), Shiji v Radhika ((2011) 10 SCC 705) while analysing the case. The Court took notice of the mental trauma the acts would have caused on the child and the emotional well-being of the child. The Court put forth the opinion such a case was “not a private offence.”
Decision
Taking into consideration all the above factors, the Court decided not to quash the FIR. Justice Subramonium Prasad who heard the case, analysing all the evidence said “quashing the FIR would not be in the best interest of justice.” He also held that the said offences in the cases; Section 377 of the IPC and Section 4 of POCSO were non-compoundable in nature and in order for the Court to quash the criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences the High Court should do a detailed analysis on the facts, the allegations and the compromise reached. The Court held that the father of the victim cannot be permitted to settle the dispute with the accused by stating that “Deterrence to others committing a similar offence is a must and they cannot get a signal that anything and everything can be compromised.”
Sunil Raikwar v State (Crl. MC No. 186 of 2021)
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgement from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also contribute blog, articles, story tip, judgment and many more and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
