Court Rules that Marriage and Family Settlement Cannot Override Protection of Minors under Law; Quashing FIR on Grounds of Compromise Denied
In a significant judgment delivered on October 1, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjeev Narula, declined to quash an FIR registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), despite the parties involved subsequently marrying and having a child. The case involved Ankit Kumar Singh (Petitioner) and a young woman who was a minor at the time of the alleged sexual intercourse, which led to her pregnancy.
The FIR was originally lodged by the victim's mother when the victim, aged approximately 16 years and 7 months, went missing from home. The petitioner, then aged 20, was accused of sexual intercourse with the minor, constituting an aggravated penetrative sexual assault under POCSO. Subsequent medical examination confirmed the victim's pregnancy during her minority.
The victim later returned, married the petitioner after attaining majority, and they now live together with their child. Both the victim and her mother requested the court to quash the proceedings, citing a family settlement and the victim's present willingness to live with the petitioner.
However, the Court emphasized that under POCSO and the Indian Penal Code, the absence of legal consent is presumed when the victim is below 18 years of age, making any sexual intercourse with a minor an offence irrespective of subsequent marriage or family acceptance. The Court held that marriage cannot retrospectively legalize acts committed during minority, nor can a compromise or voluntary relationship negate the statutory protection afforded to children.
Rejecting the petitioner's plea for quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court underscored the seriousness of offenses involving sexual conduct with minors and the societal interest in protecting children. While acknowledging the victim's present choice and family circumstances, the Court ruled that these factors alone do not justify terminating a prosecution based on prima facie evidence of an offence committed during minority.
The judgment further clarified that relief granted by the Supreme Court in exceptional cases under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be mechanically extended as a precedent by High Courts in POCSO cases involving minors.
The case is now set to proceed to trial, where the Special Court will independently consider the charges, evidence, and defenses.
This ruling reinforces the commitment of the Indian judiciary to uphold child protection laws strictly, ensuring that the welfare of minors remains paramount despite subsequent consensual relationships or marriages.
Bottom Line:
POCSO - Quashing of FIR on basis of compromise, subsequent marriage and birth of child - Where victim was admittedly a minor at time of alleged sexual intercourse and pregnancy was recorded during minority, subsequent marriage, voluntary relationship, family settlement and parenthood do not by themselves justify quashing under Section 528 BNSS - Marriage cannot retrospectively legalise sexual acts committed during minority and POCSO protection cannot be displaced on ground that parties are now living happily as a family.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sections 3, 5(j)(ii), 6, Penal Code, 1860 Section 375 sixthly, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 Section 3, Constitution of India Articles 142, 226
Ankit Kumar Singh v. State, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990487
