Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea to Quash POCSO Proceedings Based on Settlement

Safiya Malik

The Kerala High Court dismissed a plea seeking the quashing of proceedings in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The petition, filed by the de facto complainant, sought relief on the grounds of an alleged settlement with the accused. The Court observed that offences under the POCSO Act are crimes against society and cannot be quashed solely on the basis of private compromise.

The case arose from Crime No. 1013/2018 registered at the Kallambalam Police Station in Thiruvananthapuram. The prosecution alleged that the accused had wrongfully restrained a 15-year-old girl on two occasions and made sexually explicit comments with the intent to molest her. The incidents were charged under Sections 341 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 7, 8, 11(1), 12, and 18 of the POCSO Act.

According to the police, one incident occurred while the victim was learning to ride a bicycle. The accused allegedly grabbed her hand with sexual intent. In another instance, the accused made inappropriate comments about the victim’s body and attempted to touch her near a public auditorium. The charges were framed based on the initial complaint and supporting evidence gathered during the investigation.

The petitioner, the victim herself, moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to quash the charge sheet in S.C. No. 1235/2018. The plea was supported by an affidavit in which the petitioner stated that the allegations were the result of a misunderstanding and that she no longer wished to pursue the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the charges did not meet the threshold required to constitute offences under the POCSO Act. It was contended that the alleged settlement between the complainant and the accused rendered the continuation of the proceedings unnecessary.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, stating that the case involved serious allegations of sexual assault against a minor and could not be treated as a private matter. It was submitted that the offences were of a public nature and had a significant societal impact, necessitating a full trial.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the POCSO Act was enacted to protect children from sexual offences and ensure their safety.The Court observed that offences under the Act are not merely private disputes but crimes against the public and society at large.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2024 INSC 846], which held that heinous offences involving sexual assault cannot be quashed even if the parties have reached a compromise. The judgment quoted the Supreme Court’s observation: “The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be used to quash proceedings based on compromise if it is in respect of heinous offences which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society.”

The Court further noted that the seriousness of the allegations must guide the judiciary in determining whether a case warrants quashing. It stated: “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 children, who were intended to be protected by the enactment.”

Examining the allegations and the evidence on record, the Court observed that the prosecution had sufficient material to proceed with the case. The Court recorded that prima facie evidence indicating the commission of offences under the POCSO Act precludes the possibility of quashing the proceedings based solely on a private settlement.

The judgment stated the importance of ensuring that the law serves its protective purpose for vulnerable sections of society. It observed that permitting quashing in such cases would undermine the legislative intent behind the POCSO Act.

The Court dismissed the petition, stating that the allegations required a thorough trial to determine the culpability of the accused. It directed the registry to forward a copy of the order to the jurisdictional court for necessary action.

The Court also stated that while settlements might be relevant in some cases, they cannot override the statutory framework governing serious offences like those under the POCSO Act. It concluded that public interest and the protection of vulnerable individuals must take precedence over private agreements.

The judgment referred to key provisions of the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Section 7 of the POCSO Act defines sexual assault, while Section 8 prescribes the punishment for such offences. Sections 11(1) and 12 address sexual harassment and related penalties. Section 18 pertains to attempts to commit offences under the Act.

The Court recorded that Section 528 of the BNSS provides for petitions seeking relief in ongoing criminal cases but stated that such provisions cannot be applied to override the protections established under the POCSO Act.