Kerala High Court: In two separate criminal cases involving offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’), which were sought to be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the parties, C. Jayachandran, J. observed that in both instances, the accused had married the victims. Affidavits sworn by the victims, along with statements recorded by the Investigating Officer, indicated that the victims were living a happy married life with their children. The accused persons were adequately caring for the interests of the victims. In one case, the victim had been sent for further studies, while the accused was taking care of their child.
The Court opined that these circumstances were highly extenuating and, therefore, the case fell outside the general legal principle that serious sexual offences cannot be quashed solely based on a settlement between the parties. The unique facts of the case warranted a departure from this rule.
Background
In the first case, the accused was charged for offences under Section 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and under Section 3(a), read with Section 4 and 5(ii)(j) and (l), read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused, with the necessary animus, had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim, a minor girl, repeatedly during the period from 22-12-2018 till 24-12-2018 and thereafter, at a different house on 11-09-2019, pursuant to which the victim became pregnant, thus committing the offences enumerated above.
In the second case, the accused was charged under Sections 363, 366(A), 370 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and also under Section 4, read with Section 3(a); Sections 5(l) and 5(j)(ii), read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused, with the necessary animus, enticed the victim girl, aged 17 years, from her lawful guardianship by June 2017 and committed penetrative sexual assault on her during the period from May 2019 to September 2019, repeatedly, with the result, the victim became pregnant. The prosecution also alleged that the victim gave birth to a baby girl, thus committing the offences enumerated above.
A common facet of both these cases was that the accused married the victim girl after the registration of the crime, upon the respective minors attaining majority. In both these cases, the respective accused persons seek quashment on the strength of amicable settlement with the victim girls, as also, their parents.
Analysis and Decision
The Court took note of the affidavits filed by the victims. The first victim swore an affidavit stating that she had decided to marry the accused upon attaining majority, that both their families had accepted the relationship, and that she had no objection to quashing all further proceedings in connection with the crime. A similar affidavit was filed by the second victim, wherein she affirmed that the accused is her husband, and that their marriage was solemnized on 24-01-2020 at a temple, in accordance with religious rites. She further stated that from this marriage, they have a daughter, who is currently studying in LKG, and that she is also pregnant again. The second victim also mentioned that the petitioner had sent her for a B.Sc Nursing course and was taking care of their four-year-old child. According to the victim, the case was initiated based on a misunderstanding, and she expressed that she had no further grievance against the accused.
The Court further noted that the facts sworn to in the respective affidavits were reiterated by the respective victims in such statements of the victims given before the Investigating Officer pursuant to the filing of the criminal miscellaneous cases.
The Court referred to the case of Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3193, where the Supreme Court, disapproving the quashment of offences under the POCSO Act based on a settlement between the parties, held that in such cases, the mere compromise between the parties or the existence of a remote or unlikely chance of conviction cannot serve as grounds to abruptly terminate the investigation. The Court emphasized that invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings in such cases is inappropriate, as the nature of these offences requires a thorough investigation and legal process.
The Court highlighted that the factual situation is quite different from the facts at hand. In Ramji Lal (supra), a teacher had made sexual advancements to his pupil, constituting offences under the POCSO Act; whereas in the instant facts there was a relationship between the accused and the victim, which led to physical relationship, followed by the marriage of accused and the victim.
The Court examined various High Court judgments regarding the present issue, particularly Vishnu v. State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 3357, where the proceedings were quashed in light of a settlement between the parties, which ultimately resulted in the marriage of the accused and the victim. The Court observed that merely because the offence falls under the POCSO Act, there cannot be an absolute legal rule prohibiting the quashing of proceedings based on a genuine and bona fide settlement, especially when such a settlement leads to marriage between the accused and the victim.
The Court emphasized that each case must be examined on its own facts, and there should be no blanket conclusion that quashing is entirely impermissible in POCSO cases. For example, offences under Sections 11(i) or 11(iv) of the POCSO Act, while serious, are not necessarily as grave as other offences under the Act. While the Court acknowledged that such offences are indeed serious, as they involve minors, it pointed out that even more serious offences, such as those under Section 307 of the Penal Code, can be quashed based on a genuine settlement.
However, the Court clarified that serious offences with a sexual overtone, such as rape or penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, cannot typically be quashed solely based on a settlement between the parties, as these are crimes against society and not just private issues. Nevertheless, in cases with extreme mitigating circumstances, adhering strictly to this rule may result in injustice. The Court concluded that decisions in such cases must be made based on the specific facts and circumstances, rather than the statutory label of the offence.
Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court noted that in both instances, the accused had married the victim. Affidavits sworn by the victims, along with their statements recorded by the Investigating Officer, indicate that they are living a happy married life with their child. The accused persons were adequately caring for the interests of the victims. In one instance, the victim has been sent for further studies, while the accused was taking care of their child.
The Court opined that these circumstances are extremely extenuating and, therefore, the case falls outside the general legal principle that serious sexual offences cannot be quashed solely based on a settlement between the parties. The specific facts of the case warrant a departure from this rule.
The Court highlighted the following significant aspects in cases where the offence was followed by the marriage between the perpetrator and the victim:
-
Impact on Victim’s Life: Unless the criminal proceedings were quashed, there would have been chaos, confusion, and potentially disastrous consequences for the victim, who was married to the accused and leading a happy life. In other words, continuing the proceedings would have ruined the life of the victim, the accused, and any child born from their relationship. On the other hand, quashing the offence would have restored harmony, peace, and happiness, thus fostering their family life.
-
Trauma of the Victim/Child: If the proceedings were not quashed, the trauma and agony of the victim or any child involved would have continued, despite a genuine and bona fide settlement between the parties.
-
Abuse of Process: Continuing the criminal proceedings, despite a genuine and bona fide settlement leading to marriage, would have amounted to an abuse of the judicial process, especially when it compelled the parties to face trial.
-
Ends of Justice: In such cases, the ends of justice favored quashing the proceedings, as continuing them would have resulted in an injustice by tearing apart a well-knit family.
-
Complete Justice: Quashing the proceedings would have provided complete justice to the parties, bringing an end to their legal struggles and facilitating their continued family life.
-
Witness’s Role: When the crucial witness was the victim, who had married the accused, it was highly unlikely that she would have testified against her husband. Therefore, the chances of conviction were too remote and bleak. The continuance of proceedings in such circumstances would have served no fruitful purpose.
-
Burden on Courts: Compelling the continuation of proceedings that had been genuinely settled, and which aligned with the interest of justice, would have only added to the already overburdened criminal courts in India.
For the reasons mentioned above, the Court quashed both the criminal cases.
[XX v. State of Kerala, CRL.MC NO. 6880 OF 2022, decided on 02-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioners: S.RAJEEV V.VINAY M.S.ANEER SARATH K.P. PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH ANILKUMAR C.R., BOBBY GEORGE BABY SIMON JOY C. PAUL ABHILASH MURALEEDHARAN NOBLE GEORGE MADHU V.
For Respondents: ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN ADV.E.C. BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, C.N. PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
