Read Time: 05 minutes
The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioner had repeatedly contacted the minor with "sexual intent,” which is an essential element to constitute the offence of sexual harassment
The Kerala High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against a 24-year-old man, accused of harassing a 17-year-old girl through calls and messages. The court held that sending messages or making calls without clear evidence of “sexual intent” does not meet the threshold required for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act or Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the court, observed : “mere sending of messages or having chats with a child would not constitute an offence under Section 11(iv) punishable under Section 12 of the PoCSO Act unless the messages or chats would prima facie depict the sexual intent.” Notably, Section 11(iv) of the POCSO Act, states that sexual harassment occurs when a person, with sexual intent, repeatedly or constantly contacts a child through any means, including electronic communication, and Section 12 provides with its punishment.
The court was addressing a case involving Praveen Prakash, who faced charges of stalking under Section 354D of the IPC and sexual harassment under the POCSO Act. The allegations arose from calls and messages sent by the petitioner to the minor girl, which purportedly caused her distress. However, the petitioner's counsel, Advocate Mithun Baby John, argued that the prosecution did not produce any substantial evidence, including the content of the alleged messages, to support the charges. It was further argued that none of the messages were available in the prosecution records, and the case had been resolved between the parties.
The victim had submitted an affidavit indicating that the matter had been settled and that no further legal action was necessary. Based on this, the petitioner sought the quashing of the proceedings.
The court, while acknowledging that settlements cannot form the basis for quashing POCSO-related cases, reviewed the First Information Report (FIR) and additional victim statements. The court observed that the main accusation was the petitioner’s sending of messages and making calls, which allegedly disturbed the minor. However, it noted that “nothing available from the prosecution records to find prima facie that the accused herein repeatedly or constantly followed or contacted the child through electronic digital or any other means with sexual intent, so as to attract offence under Section 11(iv) r/w. 12 of the PoCSO Act and Section 354D of IPC.”
As a result, the court quashed the FIR, final report, and all further proceedings against the petitioner.
Cause Title: X v State of Kerala [CRL.MC NO. 5035 OF 2023]
Please Login or Register
