The Delhi High Court, in a definitive ruling on April 16, 2026, held that “consensual” relationships involving minors cannot be used to quash POCSO Act cases. In Harmeet Singh v. State of GNCT Delhi, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani emphasized that statutory age limits are absolute; consent below 18 is legally non-existent.
The “De-Jure” vs. “De-Facto” Victim
The court introduced a crucial distinction to guide judicial discretion:
-
De-Jure Victim: Anyone under 18 is a victim by law, regardless of their personal feelings or “consent.”
-
De-Facto Victim: Someone who has suffered actual harm. The court noted that while quashing isn’t strictly prohibited, it must be founded on the best interests of the minor. If a victim genuinely disclaims injury acting on free will without coercion, courts may consider quashing, but only after exhaustive scrutiny.
No Retroactive Legality
The ruling clarified that subsequent events, such as marriage, childbirth, or a “no-objection” affidavit, do not retrospectively legalize an act that was a cognizable offense when it occurred. While “moral sympathy” may exist in romantic adolescent relationships, the court warned against creating “judge-made exceptions” that could normalize underage unions or undermine the Act’s deterrent purpose.
Practical Takeaway
While bail may be granted by balancing equities (like age proximity), quashing remains a much higher bar. The judgment ensures POCSO remains an unyielding shield, signaling that private settlements cannot override the state’s duty to protect children from sexual acts, regardless of perceived maturity.