The Rajasthan High Court on Saturday set aside an order accepting a police closure report in a rape and Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case, holding that the no-objection or consent of a minor victim cannot be ground to terminate criminal proceedings against the accused.
According to a lawyer familiar with the case, the court observed that rape is a crime against the body of a woman and that the honour of a woman cannot be put to stake by compromise or settlement.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand quashed an order of a special POCSO court in Alwar which had accepted a negative final report submitted by the police after the minor complainant indicated that she did not wish to pursue the case further.
Also Read:Two men held in separate rape cases involving minors in Dombivli
According to the petition, the victim was a minor girl when the alleged incident took place and had lodged a first information report (FIR) against the accused persons. Her statement was also recorded under section 164 CrPC before the juvenile magistrate, where she specifically levelled allegations of rape against the accused.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the investigation was not conducted fairly and that the police submitted a negative final report despite the allegations made by the victim.
It was further submitted that a notice regarding the final report was served on the minor while she was staying at a government children’s home and that the report was accepted on the basis of her consent indicating that she did not want further proceedings.
The bench noted that both at the time of the alleged offence and at the time the final report was submitted, the petitioner was a minor. Referring to the legal position, the bench observed, “It is settled proposition of law that consent of minor is no consent in the eyes of law.”
The bench held that the special judge should not have relied upon the minor victim’s no-objection for accepting the closure report. The bench said, the victim’s parents or guardian ought to have been summoned to submit objections to the final report.
The bench said, “Once the consent of the minor prosecutrix is immaterial for registration of offence, then such consent shall still remain immaterial for all practical purposes at all the stages.”
It added that proceedings cannot be terminated merely because the minor prosecutrix later expresses unwillingness to continue with the case.
The bench emphasised that a minor lacks the legal capacity and maturity to assess the consequences of withdrawing from criminal proceedings.
The bench also found that the petitioner had not been provided legal assistance before the closure report was accepted, despite provisions under the POCSO Act entitling a child victim to legal support.
It observed that the minor was not made aware of the consequences of her consent before the impugned order was passed. Holding that the trial court’s order was unsustainable in law, the bench quashed and set aside the acceptance of the final report.
The matter has been remitted to the court of special judge, POCSO cases No. 4, Alwar. The high court directed the trial court to summon the parents or guardian of the minor victim and, if they file a protest petition, proceed in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence and material available on record.
The trial court has also been directed to provide legal assistance to the petitioner and her parents or guardian, if they are not represented by a lawyer.
