Compelling Continuance Of Proceedings Will Add Burden On Court: Kerala High Court Quashes POCSO Cases Due To Marriage Between Perpetrator & Victim
The Kerala High Court was of the view that quashment of the proceedings will result in rendering total and complete justice to the parties.
Justice C. Jayachandran, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has quashed POCSO cases against the accused persons on account of marriage with the victim.
The Court was hearing two criminal cases filed by the accused persons, seeking to quash the proceedings on the strength of settlement between the parties. Both the cases involved offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
A Single Bench of Justice C. Jayachandran observed, “When the crucial witness is the victim, who had married the accused, there exists little chance for her to speak against her own husband/accused, wherefore, the chances of conviction will be too bleak and remote. In other words, no fruitful purpose will be served by continuance of the proceedings. … Compelling the continuance of a proceedings, which is otherwise settled genuinely and which answers the requirements of the interest of justice will only add to the burden of criminal courts in India, which is otherwise over burdened.”
The Bench was of the view that quashment of the proceedings will result in rendering total and complete justice to the parties.
Advocates S. Rajeev and Bobby George represented the Petitioners while Senior Public Prosecutor (SPP) C.N. Prabhakaran and Public Prosecutor (PP) E.C. Bineesh represented the Respondents. Advocate A. Parvathi Menon was appointed as Amicus Curiae.
Brief Facts
A common facet of both the cases was that the respective Petitioners/Accused have married the victim girl after the registration of the crime, upon the respective minors attaining majority. In both these cases, the Petitioners sought quashment on the strength of amicable settlement with the victim girls, as also their parents. In the first case, an Affidavit was sworn to by the victim wherein she would swear that she had decided to marry the accused upon attaining majority (at the time of swearing the affidavit the marriage had not taken place); that the families of both the accused and victim have accepted the relationship; and that the victim has no objection in quashing all further proceedings in that crime.
A similar Affidavit was sworn to by the victim in the second case wherein she would swear that the accused is her husband and that their marriage was solemnized in 2020 at a temple, in accordance with the religious rites. It was also stated that in that wedlock, they have a girl child and that the victim is again pregnant. It is on this basis of the factual parameters that the High Court was called upon to quash the crime, the final report, and also all further proceedings on the strength of the settlement between the parties.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, remarked, “… when the legal position, even in respect of an offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code, is to the effect that the same can be quashed based upon genuine and bonafide settlement between the parties, there is no reason as to why a less serious offence under the POCSO Act cannot be terminated. Generally, serious offences having a sexual overtone, like rape under the Penal Code, and a penetrative sexual assault etc., under the POCSO Act cannot be terminated by quashing the same, acting only upon the settlement between the parties.”
The Court said that it is indeed the offence against the society and not a private issue between the Petitioner and the defacto Complainant; however, in cases where there exist extreme mitigating circumstances, adherence to that Rule will work out injustice.
“Suffice to say that the choice in this regard will have to be taken based on the attendant facts; and not on the basis of the nomenclature of the statute. … This Court is of the opinion that these circumstances are extremely extenuating, so as to bring the case outside the scope of the general proposition that serious sexual offences cannot be quashed, acting only upon the settlement between the parties”, it added.
The Court further took note of the following aspects assuming significance in the peculiar nature of the cases, where the offence is followed by the marriage between the perpetrator and the victim –
(1) 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. In other words, the life of the victim, the accused and the child, if any, in that relationship will be ruined. Per contra, If the offence is quashed, it will bring in harmony, peace and happiness, thus promoting their family life.
(2) Unless, the Court choose to quash the proceedings, the trauma/agony of the child/victim continues, despite a genuine and bonafide settlement.
(3) Despite and dehors a bonafide and genuine settlement culminating in the marriage between the petitioner/accused and the victim, if the criminal proceedings are to continue - thereby compelling the parties to face the trial - the same verge upon abuse of process.
(4) The ends of justice are in favour of quashment in such category of cases, since it will be an injustice to separate a well knit family by the continuance of the proceedings.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the proceedings against the accused persons.
Cause Title- XX v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:30289)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates S. Rajeev, Bobby George, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Prerith Philip Joseph, Anilkumar C.R., Baby Simon, Joy C. Paul, Abhilash Muraleedharan, Noble George, and Madhu V.
Respondents: SPP C.N. Prabhakaran, PP E.C. Bineesh, and Advocate Anand Kalyanakrishnan.
