Date: August 2025
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an accused seeking quashing of an FIR registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, while also imposing costs of ₹10,000 on him for raising a plea that the case should be quashed to save the minor victim from “social stigma.”
Justice Girish Kathpalia, hearing the matter, categorically rejected the contention, holding that such arguments were not only misplaced but also contrary to the very spirit of laws designed to protect minors from sexual exploitation. The Court observed:
“The stigma has to be, not on the victim of the wrong, but on the perpetrator of the wrong. There has to be a paradigm shift in societal mindset by attaching stigma to the accused and not to the girl who underwent the horrid suffering by way of rape.”
FIR and Charges
The accused, Altaf, had sought quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 137 and 65(1)/351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, claiming that the victim’s parents had compromised the matter with him.
However, the prosecution opposed the plea, submitting that:
• The accused had been declared a Proclaimed Offender.
• The victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence and continues to be underage.
• The allegations involved blackmail, sexual exploitation, and making of explicit video recordings to coerce the prosecutrix into physical relations.
Rejecting the argument based on compromise, the Court held that the right to forgive or pardon rests only with the victim, not with her parents, and more importantly, since she is a minor, such compromise has no legal sanctity.
The Court remarked:
“This argument is completely devoid of merit. For, it is the minor girl, and not her parents, who was wronged and suffered because of the alleged act on the part of the petitioner. It is only the prosecutrix who could have pardoned the wrongdoer, that too in certain specific conditions. As mentioned above, the prosecutrix continues to be a minor girl.”
The Bench further noted that the accused’s conduct—absconding and evading the law after being declared a proclaimed offender—was itself sufficient to disentitle him from seeking extraordinary relief.
Dismissing the petition, the Court imposed ₹10,000 as costs, directing the petitioner to deposit the same with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within one week.
The judgment underscores the non-compoundable nature of sexual offences against children under the POCSO Act, while also stressing the need for a societal shift in attaching stigma to perpetrators rather than victims.
Case Title: Altaf v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr
