Delhi High Court Says Court Must Not Ignore Real Human Consequences, Quashes POCSO FIR Prioritising Welfare of Mother and Child. The Court said when law fails lived reality, a young mother and child’s welfare must be paramount.
The Delhi High Court opened a significant judgment that strongly highlighted the gap between rigid legal provisions and real human circumstances.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani quashed an FIR registered under section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and section 6 of the POCSO Act against a man whose wife, a former minor, firmly stated that she had not suffered any loss or injury and that continuing the criminal case would destroy her young family.
The FIR had been registered after doctors at Safdarjung Hospital informed the police during her delivery, as they discovered that she was a minor at the time of conception. The prosecutrix never made any complaint against her husband.
The couple stated that they had married on 04.09.2024 as per Sikh rites when the husband was about 22 years old and the girl was about 17. A child was born on 12.06.2025, and the FIR was lodged the very next day due to mandatory reporting by the hospital.
In her affidavit and statements recorded during court proceedings, the prosecutrix said repeatedly that she had no grievance. She stressed that she had married out of her own volition, that she was living peacefully in her matrimonial home, and that she did not wish to continue the FIR.
When interacting directly with the Court, she explained that, if her husband was prosecuted, “the young family that she and the petitioner have started alongwith their infant would be destroyed.”
She added that,
“The petitioner has committed no offence against her; that she was a willing participant in the physical relationship with the petitioner; and if the petitioner is sentenced, it would leave the prosecutrix and her child bereft of any support and sustenance alongwith all consequential results.”
The Court examined this unusual situation by differentiating between a “de-juré victim” and a “de-facto victim.”
Although the law automatically treats a minor as a victim, Justice Bhambhani emphasised that the statutory definition under CrPC and BNSS requires the person to have actually suffered “any loss or injury.”
The prosecutrix clearly stated that she had suffered none. While the legal position is clear that the consent of a minor is of no legal value, the Court refused to focus on the consent question and instead addressed the deeper issue: what happens when there is no real victim who wants prosecution?
The Court discussed how the POCSO Act is designed to protect children, but its application sometimes clashes with real life. It cited academic thinking that there may be a “crime without a victim” when no one experiences harm in reality.
Justice Bhambhani noted that,
“Sometimes there may be a de-juré victim but no de-facto victim, and insisted that criminal law should not be applied in a way that harms the person it is supposedly designed to protect.”
The judgment surveyed a large number of Supreme Court and High Court decisions across India and found that the dominant judicial trend supports quashing proceedings in cases where the couple has married, has a child, and the prosecutrix does not want to pursue criminal charges. Only a few judgments take the opposite view, mainly on the argument that POCSO offences cannot be condoned because minor consent is invalid and such offences are crimes against society.
However, the Court noted that its case was not like those involving coercion, assault, or pressure, and that here the prosecutrix had persistently supported the closure of the case from the beginning.
The Court relied significantly on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Ayyub Malik, where the apex court held that “the subsequent development of marriage between the two lovers and the fact that they have been merrily living would outweigh the need to take the alleged offence or the criminal proceedings to their logical end” and that continuing such proceedings would be an “abuse of process of law.”
Also Read: ‘Bundle of Lies’: Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR Filed on False Promise of Marriage
The Delhi High Court fully agreed with this reasoning and added that here the consequences would be even more severe, as prosecuting the husband would directly harm the wife and the infant child.
Justice Bhambhani warned that such quashing must be handled carefully to prevent misuse, but he also stressed that courts cannot ignore genuine cases where continuing prosecution would lead to “serious re-victimisation” of the supposed victim.
The Court listed several safeguards that must be applied, including ensuring the prosecutrix’s free will, checking the genuineness of the relationship, verifying the absence of coercion or violence, and considering the welfare of the child.
In this case, the Court found that the prosecutrix had consistently and freely maintained that she had not suffered any loss or injury; she had married voluntarily; there was no allegation of any violence; the couple was living as a family; and their infant’s future would be severely damaged if the father was prosecuted.
The Court emphasised that,
“The principal duty of a court is to do justice and that it cannot lose sight of the enormity of the consequences that prosecution would bring upon the prosecutrix and the child.”
The Court therefore held that,
“The right course of action to secure the ends of justice and especially to prevent re-victimisation of the de-juré victim, would be to quash the criminal proceedings.”
The State also informed the Court that it had no objection to the quashing.
Ultimately, the Delhi High Court quashed FIR No.279/2025 dated 13.06.2025 and closed all related proceedings.
This judgment stands out for its clarity in recognising that criminal law cannot be applied mechanically where doing so harms the very person it aims to protect, especially when she repeatedly affirms that she has not suffered any injury.
Justice Bhambhani concluded by reiterating that the Court must not ignore real human consequences and that the welfare of the young mother and her child must come first when the law itself does not reflect their lived reality.
Case Title: Harmeet Singh vs. State of GNCT Delhi and Anr.