Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

Reaffirming the principle that heinous crimes cannot be subverted by settlement between parties, the Kerala High Court rejected a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the accused under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The court, presided over by Justice G. Girish, emphatically ruled that “It is not possible to give the stamp of approval of this Court for the settlements which an accused managed to procure in heinous offences like rape and POCSO crimes by winning over the victims or their parents.”

The case pertained to a 29-year-old accused, accused of engaging in sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old girl on two occasions. He was charged under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3,4,5, and 6 of the POCSO Act providing with the offence of penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault and their punishment. The crime was revealed after the victim disclosed the incidents while being presented before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad, in a separate  missing case. Subsequently, the Police registered a case and filed a final report implicating the accused.

The accused/ petitioner sought to quash the proceedings on the grounds that the allegations were false and baseless. He claimed that the victim's original statement was allegedly coerced by the police. To support his claim, he submitted an affidavit signed by the victim before a Notary Public, in which she stated that her statements to the police were coerced. The petitioner also pointed out that the victim had attempted to withdraw her statements by filing an application before the Additional Sessions Court (POCSO), Thiruvananthapuram, which was declined. Relying on these grounds, it was argued that the affidavit indicated the victim’s lack of intent to pursue the case, which justified the quashing of proceedings.

The court, however, rejected the petitioner’s arguments, emphasising that affidavits purportedly retracting statements cannot replace a trial. The court highlighted that Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr .P .C), which provides with High Court’s inherent powers, including quashing of proceedings, must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. “The exceptional powers conferred on this court under Section 482 Cr .P .C. could be exercised to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure, to prevent abuse of process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. The case on hand does not come under any such category where the powers under Section 482 Cr .P .C. could be exercised…” the court stated.

The court further elaborated that crimes under the POCSO Act and related offences of sexual assault are serious in nature and directly impact the societal fabric. The court said, “The termination of prosecution proceedings in such cases will be detrimental to the interests of the society. The mere fact that the victim and her parents are not interested in proceeding with the prosecution after the elapse of time, is no reason to wind up the proceedings against the accused.”

As a result, the petition was dismissed.

 

Cause Title: Anand v State of Kerala [CRL.MC NO. 2219 OF 2020]

Appearance : Advocates JelsonN J.Edampadam and Janaki Krishnan A- for the petitioner; and Public Prosecutor Sanal P. Raj - for the state and Advocate Manjari G.B. - for the Complainant