In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has observed that serious offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act can be quashed based on settlement between parties if there are "extreme mitigating circumstances."
Justice C. Jayachandran made this observation while quashing two criminal cases where the accused and the victims later got married. The Court highlighted that although offences under POCSO usually cannot be quashed due to their grave nature, an exception could be made when not doing so may result in injustice.
Read also: Tamil Nadu Governor Verdict Doesn't Apply to Kerala's Bill Assent Delay: AG Tells Supreme Court
“Generally, serious offences having a sexual overtone... cannot be terminated... acting only upon the settlement... However, in cases where there exist extreme mitigating circumstances, adherence to the Rule will work out injustice.”
The Court stated that there cannot be a blanket rule preventing quashing of all POCSO cases. If the settlement is genuine and leads to marriage and a peaceful family life, the Court may consider quashing the case.
Read also: Kerala High Court Directs Primacy to District Judge's Opinion for Public Prosecutor Appointments
"Merely because the offences under the POCSO Act is alleged... there cannot be an absolute proposition... especially when the settlement is genuine and bonafide..."
Justice Jayachandran referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Ramji Lal Bhairwa v State of Rajasthan, which held that POCSO offences cannot be quashed merely on settlement. However, he clarified that facts in that case were different as it involved a teacher exploiting his student.
The High Court also relied on its earlier decision in Vishnu v State of Kerala, which stated that courts can use their special powers to do complete justice in cases involving sexual offences.
In the current cases, both accused were in a relationship with the victims, leading to sexual relations, pregnancy, and later marriage. The victims submitted affidavits affirming the settlement and marital status. The Court also directed the police to record their statements, which matched their affidavits.
Read also: Three Kerala High Court Judges Narrowly Escape Pahalgam Terror Attack
In the first case, the accused was charged under IPC Section 376 and multiple POCSO sections for repeated sexual assault, resulting in pregnancy. In the second case, the accused was charged for enticing a 17-year-old and committing sexual assault, resulting in pregnancy and the birth of a child. The victim, now married and pregnant again, confirmed that she was pursuing nursing studies with full support from her husband.
The Court stressed that continuing legal proceedings would harm the victim emotionally and disrupt her current stable life.
"Unless the criminal proceedings are terminated... there will be utter chaos, confusion and even havoc in the life of the victim..."
The Court added that a conviction was highly unlikely, as the key witness—the victim—is now married to the accused and unlikely to testify against him.
"When the crucial witness is the victim... the chances of conviction will be too bleak and remote..."
The High Court ultimately ruled in favor of quashing the cases, prioritizing the current well-being of the victims and their families.
Amicus Curiae: Adv. A. Parvathi Menon
Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M. S. Aneer, Sarath K. P., Prerith Philip Joseph, Anilkumar C. R., Bobby George, Baby Simon, Joy C. Paul, Abhilash Muraleedharan, Noble George, Madhu V.
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocate Anand Kalyanakrishnan, E. C. Bineesh (PP), C. N. Prabhakaran (Sr. PP)
Case No: Crl.MC No. 6880 of 2022 & 7427 of 2024
Case Title: XX v YY
