The Kerala High Court, in a landmark ruling, reiterated that serious offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the complainant. Delivering the judgment, Justice A. Badharudeen emphasized that the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act are designed to address grave societal concerns and cannot be diluted through private settlements.
Case Background
The case involved a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash proceedings initiated in a criminal case concerning allegations of sexual offenses against a minor. The accused was charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the POCSO Act, and the Information Technology Act (IT Act). The prosecution alleged that the accused engaged in repeated sexual acts with the minor, promising marriage.
The petitioner argued that the matter had been resolved amicably, as evidenced by an affidavit submitted by the complainant after attaining majority, and sought quashing of the FIR and all related proceedings.
Legal Issues Examined
The court dealt with several pertinent legal questions:
1. Whether a settlement affidavit can justify quashing proceedings under the POCSO Act?
2. How should courts interpret the POCSO Act in cases involving alleged consensual relationships?
3. The impact of a victim’s recorded statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. in cases where the victim later becomes hostile.
Court’s Observations
Justice Badharudeen, after hearing the parties and reviewing precedents, unequivocally held that private settlements are not valid grounds for quashing proceedings in cases involving serious offenses under the POCSO Act. He stated, “Serious offenses under the POCSO Act cannot be settled through compromise, as they have a significant societal impact and are not merely private disputes.”
The court also referred to the victim’s recorded statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., observing that even if the victim later retracts their allegations, the statement can corroborate the prosecution’s case. This ensures that justice is not derailed by subsequent settlements or hostile witnesses.
Precedential Analysis
The court addressed a judgment of the Madras High Court in Vijayalakshmi v. State, which suggested the need for legislative intervention in cases involving consensual relationships between adolescents. However, Justice Badharudeen dismissed the applicability of this precedent, declaring it per incuriam as it conflicted with binding rulings from the Supreme Court. He highlighted that while societal attitudes towards adolescent relationships may evolve, the judiciary must uphold the law as it stands.
Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the court stated, “Criminal proceedings involving heinous offenses under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed solely on the grounds of compromise between the parties, as such offenses have a far-reaching impact on society.”
Court’s Decision
The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the prosecution’s evidence prima facie established serious offenses under the POCSO Act and related statutes. It directed the jurisdictional court to proceed with the case as per law, ensuring that the societal intent behind the POCSO Act is upheld.
