Synopsis

The petitioner (accused) sought quashing of an FIR under Section 64(1) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The FIR was registered at the instance of doctors at Safdarjung Hospital where the prosecutrix, then about 17 years old, had gone to deliver a child. The prosecutrix had never made any complaint; she and the petitioner (then about 22 years old) had married voluntarily on 4th September 2024 and were living together with their infant child. The prosecutrix filed an affidavit supporting quashing, stating she suffered no loss or injury. The Delhi High Court held that while the consent of a minor has no legal value, the absence of a de‑facto victim (i.e., a person who claims to have suffered loss or injury) is central to a criminal prosecution. Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Ayyub Malik, K. Kirubakaran and Mahesh Mukund Patel, the court quashed the FIR, observing that continuing the proceedings would cause grave re‑victimisation of the de‑juré victim and her infant child. The court also laid down a nine‑point checklist for evaluating such quashing pleas under the POCSO Act.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Date of Judgment: 16th April 2026

Citation: W.P.(CRL) 1985/2025 (2026:DHC:3142)

Core Law: Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 – Sections 2(1)(d), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 21, 29, 30; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 2(wa), 482; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 2(1)(y), 528; Constitution of India – Article 226

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 – Sections 2(1)(d) (definition of “child”), 3, 4 (penetrative sexual assault), 5, 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault), 7 (sexual assault), 21 (mandatory reporting by hospital authorities), 29, 30 (presumptions)

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 2(wa) (definition of “victim”), Section 482 (inherent powers of High Court)

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 2(1)(y) (definition of “victim”), Section 528 (saving of inherent powers)

• Constitution of India – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction)

Key legal principles applied

• De‑jure victim vs de‑facto victim: A person may be a “victim” in the statutory sense (de‑jure) by reason of being a minor, but if she herself disclaims any loss or injury, there may be no de‑facto victim. The absence of a de‑facto victim is a relevant consideration for quashing criminal proceedings.

• Consent of a minor is irrelevant for conviction, but may be considered for quashing in extraordinary circumstances: While the POCSO Act does not recognise consent of a child, the subsequent conduct of the parties (marriage, cohabitation, birth of a child) and the victim’s unequivocal statement that she suffered no harm can outweigh the need to continue prosecution, especially when the prosecution would lead to grave re‑victimisation of the de‑juré victim.

• Principle of “abuse of process of court” and “ends of justice”: Even in heinous offences, if continui

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.