BETWEEN CLOSURE AND COMPROMISE: STUDY OF DELHI HIGH COURT’S DECISION TO QUASH FIR IN MINOR’S SEXUAL EXPLOITATION CASE

In the case of X v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2025 SCC OnLine Del 4045), (decided on 27.05.2025), the Delhi High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to the erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) to quash an FIR containing serious allegations under Sections 354, 354C, 384, and 506 of the IPC as well as Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’), primarily on the ground that the victim wished to move on with her life. While the judgment, on the surface, projects an image of empathy and reformative intent, it simultaneously raises troubling yet essential questions about the legal permissibility and ethical propriety of quashing serious criminal proceedings—particularly those involving child sexual abuse—merely on the basis of a purported private settlement.

 

THE CASE: A TIMELINE OF COERCION AND EXPLOITATION

The FIR, based on events that began in 2016, narrates a disturbing trajectory: a minor girl was emotionally manipulated into sharing private photographs by a senior student, later blackmailed for money, and extorted by both the Accused and his friend. Multiple threats, repeated payments, and eventual psychological breakdown led to the FIR. Pursuant to a thorough investigation, the Police proceeded to file a charge sheet before the competent court.

Notably, the victim was under 18 when the events occurred, making her legally incapable of consenting to such conduct. The POCSO Act was specifically designed to criminalize even consensual sexual acts involving minors — reflecting a legislative policy that treats the protection of children as a matter of public interest, not private compromise.

 

THE JUDGMENT: A TILT TOWARD PERSONAL CLOSURE

The Delhi High Court’s Judgment focuses heavily on the victim’s current state: her wish to move on, the stigma faced by her family, and the possible impediment to her matrimonial prospects. The Court concluded that continuing prosecution would prolong trauma and serve no public purpose. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR, subject to the condition that the accused undertake community service and deposit a sum of ₹50,000 with the Army Welfare Fund.

A LEGAL AND ETHICAL SLIPPERY SLOPE

While courts are empowered under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC) to quash proceedings in exceptional cases, this Judgment arguably stretches that discretion to its legal and moral limits — and perhaps beyond.

• Quashing Non-Compoundable Offences Involving Minors: A Dangerous Precedent

The allegations involved not just harassment, but sexual exploitation and extortion of a minor. These are not private wrongs amenable to “settlement.” Section 12 of the POCSO Act constitutes a non-compoundable offence, and the legislature has consciously and unequivocally excluded the possibility of compromise in such cases, recognising the grave public interest involved in prosecuting crimes against children. Judicial quashing of such cases on the basis of “settlement” potentially undermines the statutory scheme of POCSO, which treats the child’s welfare as paramount, regardless of current wishes.

• Can Consent Cure a Crime?

The Victim’s present choice to not pursue the matter, while relevant to sentencing or rehabilitation, cannot retroactively legalize the acts complained of — especially when the law presumes absence of consent in cases involving minors. The Court’s reasoning seems to blur this line. Justice must be victim-sensitive, not accused-sensitive cloaked in victim-centricity.

• What About the Next Victim?

The Court rightly noted the misuse of digital platforms and the pattern of coercion. But if such conduct goes unpunished due to subsequent withdrawal, it sends the wrong signal — that if the accused manages to pressure the victim into silence over time, the legal system will eventually accommodate the compromise. This could incentivize coercive settlements in future cases, undermining deterrence and emboldening perpetrators.

• Community Service as Deterrence?

While community service and monetary costs have their place in restorative justice, they are grossly inadequate substitutes for prosecution in a case involving criminal intimidation, sexual exploitation, and extortion of a child. The sentence appears disproportionately lenient, failing both the victim and society.

• A Gendered and Social Bias?

The Victim’s desire to move on is intertwined with the concern that her matrimonial prospects may be jeopardized. This unfortunate but real pressure speaks not to the futility of prosecution but to deep societal prejudices. Courts should resist reinforcing such pressures by allowing criminal law to bend around them. Instead, the judicial response must focus on de-stigmatizing victimhood rather than acquiescing in the consequences of stigma.

 

CONCLUSION: JUSTICE, OR JUST CLOSURE?

The Delhi High Court’s judgment seeks to be humane — but in doing so, it risks becoming legally fragile and ethically troubling. It may offer closure — but at what cost?

Justice cannot merely be what the parties want in the moment. Sometimes, it must also be what the law demands — especially when the victim was a child and the offence affect societal interest.

 

SARTHAK KALRA

SENIOR LEGAL ASSOCIATE

THE INDIAN LAWYER & ALLIED SERVICES

 

 

EDITOR’S COMMENTS

The Delhi High Court while using it’s discretion in the case of X Vs. State of NCT of Delhi has considered a basic principle of law that is in the interest of justice. While the wisdom of the Court was to help the abused victim to restart her life, yet it has the effect of sending wrong signals to the miscreants who will feel that they will get away with anything despite stringent laws like POCSO.

The price paid could be the erosion of the rule of law, the undermining of public interest, and the dilution of the statutory protections specifically crafted to safeguard children from sexual abuse. Empathy is an essential judicial virtue. But so is constitutional fidelity, especially to laws designed to protect the vulnerable. If the justice system begins treating POCSO cases as “settle-able” — even where clear abuse of power, coercion, and digital exploitation are involved — we move from a model of protection to one of pragmatic abdication.

 

SUSHILA RAM VARMA

ADVOCATE AND CHIEF LEGAL CONSULTANT

 

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about

various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled POCSO Law in India: Key

Provisions Every Parent Must Know | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma | can be viewed

at the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_l0H0LGY4