The Delhi High Court ruled that marrying a minor victim cannot cancel criminal charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court stressed that child protection laws are supreme and marriage is not a “remedy” for such serious offences.
The Delhi High Court has once again made it very clear that marriage cannot be used as a way to escape criminal liability in cases involving minors under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. In a recent and important judgment, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma stressed that the law is meant to protect children, and no personal arrangement like marriage can override that protection.
The Court clearly stated that the POCSO Act is a special law created to safeguard children from sexual offences and exploitation. It underlined that a minor’s consent has no legal value under this law. Because of this, even if the accused later marries the victim or both families reach a settlement, it does not erase the crime. The Court emphasized that such offences are serious and cannot be compromised or settled privately.
The case came before the Court when a man filed a petition asking for an FIR against him to be quashed. The FIR included serious charges like kidnapping and sexual assault. His main argument was that he had now married the victim and they were living together as husband and wife. He claimed that continuing the criminal case would disturb their married life and create unnecessary problems.
However, the High Court strongly rejected this argument. It pointed out that the purpose of the POCSO Act is to treat such offences as non-compoundable, meaning they cannot be settled between the parties. The Court warned that accepting such pleas would create a very dangerous situation, where accused persons might try to avoid punishment by marrying the victim after committing the offence.
The Court also explained an important legal difference. It said that in some cases involving adults or near-adults, courts may take a practical view, especially in situations of consensual relationships or elopements. But when the victim is a minor and the provisions of the POCSO Act clearly apply, then any so-called “settlement” through marriage has no legal value.
The Court made it clear that the State has a duty to continue prosecution in such cases to maintain the law’s deterrent effect, regardless of whether the victim later agrees or wants to withdraw the complaint.
Reinforcing its stance, the Court highlighted that child protection laws are stronger than personal or social arrangements like marriage. It clearly stated that the most important factor in such cases is the age of the victim at the time of the offence. If the victim was a minor, the act is automatically considered an offence under the law.
The judgment strongly rejected the idea that marriage can act as a solution to such crimes. By refusing to quash the FIR, the Delhi High Court sent a strict message that marriage is not a “remedy” for statutory rape. The decision makes it clear that the Indian legal system will always prioritize the safety, dignity, and protection of children over any private settlements or social compromises.
Click Here to Read More On Child Abuse
