Some criminal cases can be quashed once the parties settle; a case of child sexual assault is not among them. The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a POCSO and rape prosecution on the strength of a compromise said to have been reached with the victim’s family, holding that such an offence is not private in nature, that a child victim or their family cannot compromise it, and that quashing on settlement would defeat the object of the law.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has declined to quash an FIR for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a compromise stated to have been arrived at with the victim’s family, holding that an offence under the POCSO Act cannot be compromised by the child victim or their family [Anand Singh Rawat v. The State and Another].
Justice Sachin Datta, dismissing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the FIR and the proceedings, held that the offences were heinous and could not be quashed merely because a settlement was claimed.
The case
The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, on the basis of a compromise said to have been reached with the victim on the intervention of her family. The allegations concern aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon a child, an offence which, the Court noted, has a serious impact on society; the trial had reached the stage of prosecution evidence.
Heinous offences cannot be quashed on settlement
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which, while recognising the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash even non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement, clarified that this power cannot be exercised in respect of heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity. Such offences, the Supreme Court held, are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society, and a settlement between the victim and the offender in such cases has no legal sanction.
Applying that principle, the Court held that a child victim or their family cannot compromise an offence under the POCSO Act, and that quashing the proceedings at this stage on the basis of a compromise would defeat not only the object of the statute but also the ends of justice. It accordingly dismissed the petition, clarifying that nothing in its order should be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, which would be decided by the trial court on the basis of the evidence.
Why it matters
The order restates an important limit on the settlement-based quashing of criminal cases. The High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings where the parties have compromised is wide, and is often exercised in disputes that are essentially private, such as commercial or family quarrels, where prosecution serves no larger public interest once the parties make peace. But that logic does not extend to offences that wrong society as a whole. Rape, and sexual offences against children under the POCSO Act, fall in that category: they are not the private affair of the victim and the accused, and cannot be bartered away by a compromise.
The reasoning carries particular force in the context of child victims. A compromise in a POCSO case is especially fraught, given the vulnerability of the child and the real risk of pressure or inducement upon the family; recognising such settlements would create an incentive to procure them, undermining the very protection the statute was enacted to provide. By holding that a POCSO offence cannot be compromised, the Court closes that door and keeps the focus on a trial on the merits, where the allegations are tested by evidence rather than resolved by private arrangement.
It bears emphasis that the Court expressed no view on whether the allegations are true. The refusal to quash is not a finding of guilt; it means only that the case must run its course before the trial court, where the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence and the charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. What the order settles is that the existence of a compromise is not, in a POCSO or rape case, a ground to terminate the prosecution before that adjudication takes place.
Case Title: Anand Singh Rawat v. The State and Another [CRL.M.C. 2042/2026]
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Date of Decision: September 22, 2026
Status: Petition to quash the POCSO/rape FIR on the basis of a compromise dismissed; a POCSO offence held incapable of being compromised by the child victim or their family. No opinion expressed on the merits; trial to proceed. Allegations untested; presumption of innocence applies.
This report concerns a sensitive matter involving a child and allegations of sexual offences; the victim’s identity is protected by law and has not been disclosed. If you or someone you know needs support, the childline 1098 and the police helpline 112 can direct you to assistance.