Court Rules Compromise Between Unrelated Parties Insufficient to Overturn Conviction of Sexual Harassment of Minor; Emphasizes Public Interest and Protection of Vulnerable Children
In a significant judgment delivered on September 30, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, dismissed a petition seeking to quash the FIR and subsequent conviction of Sushil Kumar under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The petitioner had been convicted for sexually harassing a minor girl aged 16 years, with the accused being 27 years old at the time of the incident.
The case arose from allegations that the petitioner persistently stared at, followed, and attempted to forcibly detain the minor complainant on March 17, 2019, near her coaching center and Sunday market. The petitioner further tried to involve another girl to befriend the complainant to facilitate his advances. The trial court convicted Sushil Kumar on charges including Sections 509 and 354B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 7, 8, 11(i), 11(iv), and 12 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for three years.
Post-conviction, the petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the complainant, who stated that she did not wish to pursue the matter further, citing their status as neighbours. On this basis, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the FIR and conviction.
The Delhi High Court rejected the petition, holding that offenses under the POCSO Act are of a serious nature and meant to protect minors from sexual harassment and predatory conduct. The Court observed that the case did not fall into the "Romeo-Juliet" category where mutual affection between parties might justify leniency. Here, the minor victim had expressly rejected the petitioner's advances, and there was no prior affection or relationship between the parties.
The Court further held that the MoU was "incredulous and unbelievable," as it merely stated that the parties were neighbours, which failed to satisfy the conscience of the Court to invoke its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Emphasizing the public interest and the State's duty to protect vulnerable children, the Court stated that accepting such compromise post-conviction would amount to a mockery of justice and abuse of judicial power.
The Court referred to precedents including *Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh* (2022) and *State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh* (2026) to underline that the strict provisions of the POCSO Act do not recognize consent of the minor as a defense, and that quashing is not permissible merely on the basis of settlements in serious offenses against minors.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, reinforcing the message that crimes against minors demand punitive action and cannot be allowed to go unpunished through private settlements, especially when the offenses are grave and impact public interest and child safety.
Bottom Line:
POCSO Act - Quashing of FIR/conviction on basis of compromise after conviction declined - Where minor victim aged 16 years was sexually harassed by 27-year-old accused, case not falling in "Romeo-Juliet" category - Compromise/MoU between unrelated parties after conviction held unbelievable and insufficient to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS - Offences under POCSO being serious and against public interest cannot be quashed merely on settlement.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sections 7, 8, 11(i), 11(iv), 12, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 509, 354B
Sushil Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2998838
