POCSO Cases Cannot Be Referred To Mediation; Cannot Be Settled Through Monetary Payments: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court held that POCSO cases cannot be referred to mediation and cannot be settled or compromised through mediated agreements.
The Court observed that such cases should not be subjected to resolution through monetary payments or similar arrangements.
In that context, the Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that, "offences under POCSO Act, which are non-compoundable in nature and are even rarely quashed by the Constitutional Courts, cannot be referred to mediation by the Courts and cannot be settled or compromised through mediated agreements, nor should they be subject to resolution through monetary payments or similar arrangements. Allowing such serious and grave offences to be settled through mediated agreements, especially since such settlement is acceded to by the parent or guardian of the minor victim and not the victim himself or herself who is a minor, would amount to trivialising the gravity of the offence and undermining the rights of minor victims of sexual abuse to seek appropriate legal recourse and justice."
Counsel Rajat Wadhwa, along with others, appeared for the petitioner, while ASC Rupali Bandhopadya, along with others, appeared for the respondents.
A father, estranged from his wife, had sought the revival of his complaint under the POCSO Act against a close relative concerning his two minor daughters, aged 17 and one who had attained majority. The Special Court, prompted by the parents' desire to settle the matter, had referred the complaint to mediation. Subsequently, a settlement was reached at the mediation center, leading to the closure of the POCSO Act complaint by the court.
The High Court noted that it appeared that the parties in the present case are misusing their children to settle scores with each other. In that context, it was said that, "Though the orders and the proceedings before the learned Special Court, who was dealing with the complaint filed under POCSO Act, which have been impugned before this Court, do prima facie reflect that the Court had committed an error by referring the case to Mediation, an issue which has been addressed in the preceding paragraphs, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not explained as to why this petition was filed after more than nine years of the passing of impugned order, especially when the complaint under POCSO Act was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of statement made by petitioner himself."
Holding that a Court cannot be a party to exhibit insensitivity by ordering to reopen a chapter of the lives of the minors, one of whom has now attained majority and the other is 17 years of age, are not a party to re-opening of their complaint, and thereby re-opening the wounds which they have closed in their memory, the petition was rejected.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Counsels Rajat Wadhwa, Dhreti Bhatia, Gurpreet Singh, Nikhil Mehta, Himanshu Nailwal
Respondents: ASC Rupali Bandhopadya, Counsels Gitesh Aneja, Lakshay Kumar
Cause Title: Rajeev Dagar vs State & Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
