Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has refused to quash a Protection of Children from Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act, 2012 case. The petition was filed by the victim, who sought to withdraw the case after reaching a settlement with the accused. The court disallowed the petition ruling that allegations involving sexual offences against children constitute crimes against society at large, making their quashment impermissible, even at the request of the complainant.

A Single judge bench, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, emphasised, “where very serious allegations of sexual assault and other offences are alleged, quashment of the proceedings at the instance of the defacto complainant, could not be allowed. In such cases the status of the victim also is not different from the accused.”

The case originated from incidents reported in 2018 having occurred at Thiruvananthapuram. The accused, Abdul Shukoor, was charged under Sections 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint) and 354A (sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 7, 8, 11(1), and 12 of the POCSO Act, dealing with sexual assault and sexual harassment. The prosecution alleged that the accused, with sexual intent, molested the then-15-year-old victim while she was learning to cycle. It was further alleged that, in a separate incident, the accused restrained her on a public road and made sexually explicit remarks. The petitioner (victim) filed a plea under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash the charge sheet citing a misunderstanding of facts and a subsequent settlement with the accused. The petitioner argued that there were no prima facie grounds to support the charges and provided an affidavit affirming the settlement.

The court considered the key question: “Whether any predominance is available to the defacto complainant/victim than the accused?” Taking into account the grave nature of the allegations and referencing the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors (2024), which established that courts cannot exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings based on compromise if it is in respect of heinous offence which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society, the court answered in the negative. 

“No doubt, serious offences under the POCSO Act could not be settled and the same is a crime against the public at large and against the interest of the children, who were intended to be protected by the enactment. Therefore, quashment sought for on the ground of settlement when moved by the defacto complainant or the accused, the prime consideration is whether there were materials to see commission of offences. If the prosecution evidence would show, prima facie, materials to hold that the offences are made out, quashment on the ground of settlement moved by the accused or the defacto complainant could not be allowed,” the court remarked, in its order dated January 6, 2025.

The court concluded that “the present petition filed by the defacto complainant is liable to fail” and the charges warranted prosecution, as prima facie evidence existed to substantiate the offences. Consequently, the plea to quash the proceedings was dismissed, with directions to the jurisdictional court to proceed with the trial.

 

Cause Title: XXXXXXXXXX v State of Kerala [CRL.MC NO. 9875 OF 2024]

Appearance: Advocates Bini Krishna and Subhaja P. appeared for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor M.P. Prasanth represented the State.