POCSO Offences Can Be Quashed on Settlement If ‘Extreme Mitigating Circumstances’ Exist, Says Kerala High Court: “Unless Proceedings Are Terminated… the Trauma of the Victim Continues
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice C. Jayachandran held that where offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) are followed by a genuine and bona fide settlement culminating in marriage between the accused and the victim, such cases may be considered for quashing. The Court quashed two separate proceedings under the POCSO Act, citing exceptional mitigating circumstances, including the marriage between the accused and the victim, cohabitation, and the welfare of their children, thereby setting aside all criminal proceedings in both matters.
The petitioners in two unrelated criminal miscellaneous cases approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of proceedings initiated under the POCSO Act. The first matter involved Crime No.466/2019 registered at Santhanpara Police Station, pending as SC No.213/2020 before the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Kattappana. The second related to Crime No.63/2020 from Karinkunnam Police Station, pending as SC No.212/2020 before the Special Court (POCSO), Idukki.
In the first case, the petitioner was accused of committing repeated penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl between December 22, 2018, and December 24, 2018, and again on September 11, 2019, which resulted in the victim becoming pregnant. Charges were framed under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3(a) read with 4, 5(ii)(j)(l) read with 6 of the POCSO Act.
In the second case, the petitioner allegedly enticed a 17-year-old girl from lawful guardianship in June 2017 and committed penetrative sexual assault from May 2019 to September 2019. The victim became pregnant, gave birth to a child, and the petitioner was further alleged to have kidnapped her on February 9, 2020. Charges included Sections 363, 366(A), 370, 376(2)(n) IPC and various provisions under Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the POCSO Act.
Following the initiation of proceedings, both accused petitioners married the respective victims after they attained majority. Marriage certificates were submitted to the Court—Annexure VI in the first petition and Annexure A3 in the second. Each victim swore affidavits affirming the marriage and expressing no objection to the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Additional materials, including school and birth certificates, were submitted to establish the continuation of family life, including the raising of children born out of these relationships. The Court directed Investigating Officers to record the statements of the victims, which confirmed the contents of the affidavits and affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlements.
The petitioners argued that continued prosecution would cause irreparable harm to their family life and mental well-being of the victims and their children. It was submitted that the prospects of conviction were bleak, and that continuation of proceedings would serve no meaningful legal or social purpose.
Justice C. Jayachandran recorded: “Unless the criminal proceedings are terminated by quashing the same, there will be utter chaos, confusion and even havoc in the life of the victim who married the accused, and who is leading a happy life.”
The Court further stated: “The trauma/agony of the child/victim continues, despite a genuine and bona fide settlement... continuation of the criminal proceedings would verge upon abuse of process.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Court noted: “Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute.”
However, it distinguished the present cases by stating: “There was a relationship between the petitioner and the accused, which led to physical relationship, followed by marriage… These circumstances are extremely extenuating.”
The Court cited multiple High Court rulings, including Vishnu v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KLT 754] and Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), noting: “Each case will have to be addressed in the peculiar facts obtaining therein… there cannot be an en bloc conclusion that the quashment is wholly impermissible in cases involving POCSO offences.”
The Court acknowledged that: “Generally, serious offences having a sexual overtone… cannot be terminated by quashing… However, in cases where there exist extreme mitigating circumstances, adherence to that rule will work out injustice.”
In summation, it held: “Quashment of the proceedings will result in rendering total and complete justice to the parties.”
The Court directed as follows:
“Both the Crl.M.Cs are allowed. In the result, all further proceedings in Crime No.466/2019 of Shanthapara Police Station, now pending as S.C.No.213/2020 before the Fast Track Special Court, Kattappana (Crl.M.C.No.6880/2022); and in Crime No.63/2020 of Karinkunnam Police Station, now pending as S.C.No.212/2020 before the Special Court (POCSO), Idukki (Crl.M.C. No.7427/2024), will stand quashed.”
The Court also recorded its appreciation for the assistance provided by Amicus Curiae Smt. A. Parvathi Menon in addressing the legal and societal aspects involved in the petitions.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners :S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Prerith Philip Joseph, Anilkumar C.R, Advocates , Bobby George, Baby Simon, Joy C. Paul, Abhilash Muraleedharan, Noble George, Madhu V, Advocates
For the Respondents: Adv. E.C. Bineesh, Public Prosecutor, Adv. Anand Kalyanakrishnan; Sri. C.N. Prabhakaran, Senior Public Prosecutor
Case Title: XX v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:30289
Case Numbers: Crl.M.C. No. 6880 of 2022 and Crl.M.C. No. 7427 of 2024
Bench: Justice C. Jayachandran
[Read/Download order]
