Minor's 'No Objection' Cannot Close a POCSO Case, Rajasthan HC Quashes Alwar Court's Acceptance of Negative Final Report

The Rajasthan High Court set aside a Special POCSO Court's order accepting a closure report on the basis of a minor rape victim's consent, holding that a minor's consent is immaterial at every stage of proceedings.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly at the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, on 11 May 2026 quashed an order passed by the Court of Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, No. 4, Alwar, which had accepted a negative final report in an FIR alleging gang rape of a minor girl. The Special Judge had accepted the police's closure report after the minor victim submitted a “no objection” to the proceedings being closed. The High Court held that the consent of a minor is no consent in law, that the Special Judge ought to have summoned the victim's parents or guardian rather than the minor herself, and that no legal assistance had been provided to the victim before the order was passed. The matter has been remitted for fresh orders.

The FIR, the Investigation, and the Closure

The alleged incident of rape and sexual assault took place on 29 May 2021. The minor victim lodged an FIR at Police Station Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar, against four named accused persons — Sunil Kumar, Ravi Kumar, Ravindra, and Kundan Lal, all residents of Khanpur Mewan — for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 376D of the IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (as amended in 2019).

During investigation, the victim's statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Juvenile Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas. In those statements, she specifically and categorically named the accused and alleged rape. Despite this, the Investigating Officer recorded statements of other witnesses and, on the basis of those statements, concluded that no such incident had occurred and that the victim had lodged a false FIR. The police accordingly submitted a Final Report (Negative) before the Special POCSO Court.

The Special Judge summoned the petitioner. At that stage, the victim — who was lodged at Government Savitri Bai Phule Kanya Chhatrawas, Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar, a Children's Home — was served a notice regarding the closure report. She submitted a “no objection” to the report being accepted, indicating she did not wish to continue proceedings against the accused. On 12 November 2021, the Special Judge accepted the Final Report (Negative) on that basis.

The Challenge Before the High Court

The victim filed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3992/2022 before the Rajasthan High Court challenging the order of 12 November 2021. The petition came up for hearing in pursuance of directions issued by the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 773/2026, decided on 15 January 2026), where the Supreme Court observed that interim orders in criminal revision petitions and Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitions had stalled trials in serious offences including rape, murder, and dacoity. High Courts were directed to take up such pending matters on priority and decide them expeditiously.

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain, argued that the investigation was neither fair nor impartial. He submitted that the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements contained clear allegations of rape, which the Magistrate was duty-bound to consider before accepting the closure report. Instead, the Special Judge accepted the report without giving any plausible reasons, relying solely on the minor's consent. Counsel pressed that the consent of a minor is no consent in law, and that the proceedings against the accused should not have been closed.

The Public Prosecutor, Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, opposed the petition but was unable to controvert the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

The Court's Reasoning on Consent and the POCSO Framework

Justice Dhand examined the record and found that the victim was a minor both at the time of the alleged offence and at the time the Final Report (Negative) was submitted. That fact was not in dispute.

The Court held that the course adopted by the Special Judge — summoning the minor victim to obtain her objections to the closure report — was itself improper. The appropriate course would have been to summon her parents or guardian. A minor lacks the legal capacity and maturity to evaluate the consequences of agreeing to withdraw from criminal proceedings. Any statement of closure made by her ought to have been closely scrutinised, and the victim should have been provided competent legal assistance through the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to represent her best interests before the Court. Neither step was taken.

The Court set out the applicable legal position in clear terms. Where the prosecutrix is a minor below 18 years of age, her consent is immaterial. Once consent is immaterial for the registration of an offence, it remains immaterial at all subsequent stages. A prosecution under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act cannot be quashed merely because the minor prosecutrix later agrees not to continue proceedings. The Court also referred to Section 375 Sixthly of the IPC, noting that since the POCSO Act is a special enactment, the consent of the prosecutrix is immaterial under that provision as well.

On the procedure for dealing with closure reports in POCSO cases involving minor victims, the Court held that if a closure report is submitted contrary to the minor rape victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements, the concerned judge must examine the entire closure report together with all evidence on record before passing any order. A closure report cannot be accepted on the technical ground alone that the minor victim does not wish to continue proceedings, and certainly not on the basis of a bare “no objection” from the minor.

The Court also addressed the right to legal assistance. Section 40 of the POCSO Act, 2012 entitles every minor child to the assistance of a legal practitioner. In this case, no such assistance was provided before the impugned order was passed. The victim was not apprised of the consequences of her consent. This failure rendered the order unsustainable.

Justice Dhand relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in State of MP v. Madanlal, reported in 2015 (7) SCC 681, which held that in cases of rape or attempt to rape, the conception of compromise can under no circumstances be entertained. The Court quoted the Supreme Court's observation that Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2013) 7 SCC 77] had affirmed that respect for the reputation of women in society shows the basic civility of a civilised society, and that any liberal approach or thought of mediation in rape cases is “thoroughly and completely sans legal permissibility.”

Outcome

The High Court quashed and set aside the order dated 12 November 2021 passed by the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Case No. 4, Alwar.

The matter was remitted to that court for fresh orders. The Special Judge is directed to summon the parents or guardian of the minor victim. If they submit a protest petition, the court must follow the procedure under law and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, on the basis of the evidence and material on record.

The Trial Court is further directed to provide legal assistance to the petitioner and her parents or guardian through the DLSA, in case they are not already represented by a lawyer.

The criminal miscellaneous petition, the stay application, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.