The Delhi High Court has declined to quash a rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case against a 49-year-old man, rejecting a plea that cited a compromise with the child victim and her family. The court ruled on 22 September 2026 that such offences are heinous and carry serious societal consequences that cannot be resolved through private settlement.

Background of the Case

A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Datta dismissed a petition filed by Anand Singh Rawat, who had sought the quashing of a 2022 FIR registered at Fatehpur Beri Police Station under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which pertains to aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

Rawat had argued that a compromise had been reached with the victim through the intervention of her family and that the proceedings should therefore be dropped. The trial, however, was already at the stage of prosecution evidence at the time of the petition.

What the Court Held

Justice Datta observed that the allegations involved aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon a child by a person described as being in a position of trust or authority — one of the gravest categories of offence under the POCSO framework.

'These are heinous offences which have a serious impact on society,' Justice Datta stated in the order.

The bench further held that quashing the proceedings at this stage on the basis of the compromise 'would defeat not only the object of the statute but also the ends of justice.'

Supreme Court Precedent Invoked

The Delhi High Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which recognised the High Court's inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases but drew a clear line at serious and heinous offences.

The Supreme Court had held in that ruling: 'Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute.'

Citing this precedent, Justice Datta concluded that 'the child victim or their family cannot compromise an offence under the POCSO Act,' reinforcing that such crimes are not private matters between parties but wrongs against society at large.

Scope of the Ruling

Notably, the High Court clarified that its order should not be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case itself, which will be decided by the trial court on the basis of evidence. The ruling is confined to the question of whether the proceedings could be quashed at this stage on the ground of compromise — and the answer, the court held, is an unequivocal no.

The judgment reinforces a consistent judicial position that POCSO offences, by their very nature, cannot be insulated from prosecution through out-of-court arrangements, regardless of the consent of the victim's family. With the trial set to continue, the case will now proceed to its evidentiary conclusion before the trial court.