‘Cruelty to children affects conscience of society’: HC

New delhi: The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR in a case of cruelty towards a minor and said such crimes against children affect the society’s conscience at large and can’t be merely treated as private disputes.

In June 2023, the child’s mother alleged that her child was physically abused by her neighbours, namely, Amit and his wife Surestha, who beat him up and subjected him to electric shocks.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in an order on July 3 said though the child’s mother and the accused persons settled the matter among themselves, such acts not only impacted the victim but also raised broader concerns of public interest, safety and protection of children.

The accused had moved court for quashing of the FIR registered in 2023 on cruelty charges at Govindpuri Police Station in the capital.

The petition underscored the amicable settlement of the dispute by the warring parties.

The child’s mother informed the court that she had entered into compromise on her own free will and without any pressure, coercion or threat. The prosecution, however, opposed the petition, arguing the allegations were serious and the victim was only a 7-year-old boy at the

time of the incident.

“Such acts, prima facie, not only impact the individual victim but also raise broader concerns relating to public interest, safety as well as the protection of children. Therefore, such offences cannot be treated as mere private disputes capable of being quashed solely on the basis of a subsequent settlement between the

parties,” the court said.

Quashing the FIR at this stage would set a dangerous precedent and defeat the administration of criminal justice, it added.

The judge referred to the child’s “specific” allegations and “consistent” statements which clearly narrated the sequence of events.

“The victim was merely 7 years old at the time of the alleged incident, and the psychological trauma and fear inflicted upon a child of such tender age cannot be trivialised or disregarded merely on the ground that the instrument used for electrocution was a torch,” the order read.

The court added, “Bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations, the age of the victim, and the need to allow the law to take its own course.”

The judge noted that the parties had previously too entered into a settlement, but the complainant appeared before the court and refused to compromise the matter with the accused persons.