Gauhati High Court: Love Relationship Does Not Justify Rape — POCSO Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed on Basis of Compromise

Background and Case Overview

The Gauhati High Court recently delivered a significant ruling in Crl.Pet./1608/2025 (Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:4316), reserved on 19.03.2026 and pronounced on 25.03.2026, firmly rejecting a petition that sought to quash criminal proceedings arising from allegations of rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The petition was dismissed notwithstanding a purported compromise reached between the accused and the father of the alleged victim.

The judgment was delivered by a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pranjal Das, who unambiguously held that a consensual romantic association between two individuals does not, under any circumstances, authorise one party to impose a physical relationship upon the other without consent. The ruling reinforces the well-established legal position that heinous offences such as rape cannot be extinguished merely because the parties — or their relatives — arrive at a private settlement.

Facts of the Case

The FIR and Charges

The matter originated from Fakirganj PS Case No. 16/2025, registered pursuant to an FIR dated 01.02.2025. The FIR was lodged by the father of the alleged victim, who reported that on 29.01.2025 at approximately 4:00 PM, when his wife was not present at home, the accused entered their residence and allegedly committed rape upon his daughter while she was alone. Following the act, the accused purportedly threatened the victim to keep the incident undisclosed.

Upon completion of investigation, Charge Sheet No. 44/2025 dated 30.04.2025 was filed, with charges framed under Sections 329(4), 64, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The Petitioner's Approach

Invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the accused petitioner approached the Gauhati High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. The central ground advanced was that an agreement dated 30.05.2025 had been executed between the accused and the informant (the victim's father), wherein the father expressed no objection to the quashing of the case.

Additionally, the petitioner's counsel contended that:

  • The alleged victim had, in the intervening period, attained majority.
  • The accused and the victim shared a prior love relationship at the time of the alleged incident.
  • Both families had consented to a proposed matrimonial union between the accused and the girl.
  • In light of these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings was said to serve no further purpose.

Supreme Court Precedents Relied Upon

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the settled legal position on quashing of criminal proceedings in the context of inter-party settlements. Reference was drawn to two landmark Supreme Court decisions:

  1. Narinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466
  2. State of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688

Principles from Narinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466

The Court reproduced the governing principles laid down in paragraph 29 of this decision: