Settlements end many criminal cases in Delhi — matrimonial FIRs, cheque matters, even some offences of violence. They do not end POCSO cases. In Anand Singh Rawat v. The State & Anr., CRL.M.C. 2042/2026 (2026:DHC:8211), decided on 22 September 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act on the strength of a compromise with the victim’s family, holding that quashing on that basis would defeat both the object of the statute and the ends of justice.
The petition and its fate
The petitioner, facing an FIR alleging aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child, approached the High Court with a familiar submission: the parties had resolved their differences, the family did not wish to pursue the case, and continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose. Justice Sachin Datta rejected the premise. An offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is not a dispute between the accused and the family; it is a crime against the child and against society. The petition was dismissed, with the clarification that nothing said would influence the trial on its merits.
Where the settlement power ends
| Category of case | Quashing on settlement |
|---|---|
| Matrimonial offences (498A IPC / 85 BNS and connected FIRs) | Routinely allowed where the marriage is dissolved and settlement is genuine |
| Commercial and financial disputes with criminal colour | Generally allowed, subject to scrutiny of the settlement |
| Offences of violence causing lasting injury | Discretionary; courts weigh the social element |
| Rape and POCSO offences | Not quashed on compromise; the victim’s or family’s consent is immaterial |
The logic of the POCSO bar
Practice pointer: accused persons sometimes invest heavily in negotiated settlements expecting a POCSO quashing to follow. That expectation is misplaced in Delhi, and this judgment says so in terms. Defence efforts are better directed at the merits — age proof, medical and forensic material, consistency of the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS — than at settlement routes the law forecloses.
What families and accused persons should understand
For complainant families, the ruling is a shield against pressure to settle: the case does not belong to them to withdraw, and promises made in a settlement cannot lawfully end the prosecution. For accused persons, it removes a false exit. Once a POCSO FIR is registered, the realistic paths are investigation, discharge on legal insufficiency, or trial — not compromise. Legal strategy should be built on that footing from the first day.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why can serious offences not be quashed on settlement?
The inherent power to quash on compromise is reserved for disputes with a predominantly private flavour — matrimonial discord, commercial fallouts and the like. Heinous offences such as rape and aggravated sexual assault on children wound society, not merely the complainant, and the Supreme Court held in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, that such offences cannot be fittingly quashed even where victim and offender have settled.
Does it matter that the victim’s family consented?
No. The POCSO Act exists precisely because a child’s protection cannot be left to the choices of adults around the child — who may be subject to pressure, inducement or their own interests. The High Court held that the child victim or their family cannot compromise an offence under the Act.
Does dismissal of the quashing petition mean the accused is guilty?
No. The court expressly clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits, which remain for the trial court to decide on the evidence. Refusal of quashing only means the prosecution must run its course.
Are POCSO offences compoundable at all?
No. They are not listed as compoundable, and courts refuse to achieve indirectly through quashing what compounding provisions do not permit. Even acquittals that follow settlements — through witnesses turning hostile — attract increasing judicial scrutiny and possible perjury consequences.