The Delhi High Court has emphasized the gravity of cases involving the kidnapping or trafficking of children, asserting that such offences cannot be compromised or quashed through settlements between the wrongdoers and the child’s parents.
In a recent case titled ‘Smt. Rubina & Ors Vs. The State (Govt of NCT Of Delhi) & Ors.’, involving the kidnapping of a minor girl, Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma rejected a plea to quash criminal proceedings against the accused, highlighting the ethical and legal concerns surrounding a settlement between the kidnappers and the child’s parents.
The judgment read, “This Court is of the opinion that the offence of kidnapping and trafficking of children are serious offences, having an impact on the society at large as well as on the child’s well-being and development. This Court though takes note of the parent’s decision to reach a settlement, it cannot condone a practice that treats a minor girl as a tradable commodity,”
The court acknowledged the parents’ decision to settle but firmly asserted that it cannot endorse the practice of treating a minor as a tradable commodity. The judgment underscored the serious societal impact and harm to a child’s well-being caused by such offences, rejecting humanitarian pleas and emphasizing the importance of upholding the rule of law over private agreements that compromise the severity of crimes against children.
The court concluded that accepting such settlements would perpetuate a culture where the rights and dignity of children are subject to negotiation and compromise, ultimately dismissing the petition.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content may not reflect the most current legal developments and is not guaranteed to be accurate, complete, or up-to-date. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional before taking any action based on the information provided. The authors and publishers disclaim any liability for any loss or damage incurred as a result of reliance on this article. This article does not create an attorney-client relationship.