The Delhi High Court has recently asserted that cruelty towards children deeply affects the conscience of society, emphasizing that such offenses cannot be dismissed as mere private disputes. This statement came as the court refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) in a case involving allegations of severe cruelty against a minor.

In a ruling on July 3, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma declined a plea by two accused, Amit and Surestha, who were seeking to quash an FIR filed against them in June 2023 by the mother of a seven-year-old boy. The FIR, registered at the Govindpuri Police Station, alleged that the couple had physically assaulted the child and subjected him to electric shocks.

Even though the child's mother informed the court that she had amicably settled the matter with the accused, the court refused to accept the compromise as grounds for quashing the case. Justice Sharma emphasized that such acts not only impact the individual victim but also raise broader concerns relating to public interest, safety, and the protection of children. Therefore, these offenses cannot be treated as mere private disputes capable of being quashed solely based on a subsequent settlement between the parties.

The court highlighted the gravity of the allegations and the child's age, stating that allowing the FIR to be quashed would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the criminal justice system. The judge referred to the child's specific and consistent statements detailing the alleged abuse, noting that the psychological trauma inflicted on a child of such tender age could not be trivialized, regardless of whether the electric shocks were administered using a torch. The court also pointed out that the parties had previously attempted a settlement, which the complainant later withdrew, further reinforcing the court's decision.

This ruling underscores the judiciary's firm stance against child abuse and its commitment to safeguarding the well-being of children. It aligns with previous observations made by the Delhi High Court regarding the mental cruelty inflicted on children in different contexts. In a separate case, the court noted that involving a child in marital disputes or alienating them from a parent constitutes mental cruelty. The court had stated that using a child as a tool against a parent or denying them the affection of the other parent is an extreme act of mental cruelty. The High Court has also previously acknowledged that parental alienation, such as a wife turning children against their father, is a grave form of mental cruelty. The court observed that such vindictiveness aimed at eroding a parent-child relationship is not only an act of extreme cruelty to the parent but also gross inhumanity to the child.

The recent decision reinforces the principle that crimes against children are a matter of public concern and cannot be simply resolved through private settlements. It sends a strong message that the courts will prioritize the protection of children and ensure that allegations of cruelty are thoroughly investigated and addressed.