"Pending Proceedings Will Only Swell Their Mental Agony": Madras High Court Quashes POCSO Case Against Accused Who Married Victim

The High Court observed that continuing prosecution in such circumstances would not be conducive to the welfare of either family.

The Court was hearing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking quashing of the FIR, wherein the petitioner and the de facto complainant had filed a joint compromise memo stating they had married and were residing together.

A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice N. Sathish Kumar, while deciding the matter, remarked: “the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves the petitioner and the third respondent and their respective families only. It involves the future of two young persons who are still in their early twenties. Quashing the proceedings, will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and it will in fact pave way for the petitioner and the third respondent to settle down in their life and look for better future prospects. No useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings and keeping these proceedings pending will only swell the mental agony of the petitioner and the third respondent and their parents as well.”

Advocate. M. Vijayragavan appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate R. Vinodhraja represented the respondents.

Background

An FIR was registered alleging that the petitioner had committed offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. A charge sheet had already been filed. During the pendency of proceedings, the petitioner and the girl entered into a marriage and were blessed with a child. A compromise memo was filed before the High Court stating that both families had accepted the marriage and wished to put an end to the criminal case.

The victim and her mother personally appeared before the Court and affirmed that they did not wish to proceed with the criminal case. They requested quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings, stating that continuing the prosecution would adversely affect their peaceful family life.

Court’s Observation

The Madras High Court referred to the judgment in Sabari v. Inspector of Police (2019), wherein it was recognised that several prosecutions under the POCSO Act arise from consensual adolescent relationships, and imposing harsh minimum sentences on young adults in such situations could cause irreparable harm.

The Court also relied on the principles laid down in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar (2019), which allowed quashing of criminal cases in matters of a personal nature when the parties have genuinely settled the dispute.

While referring to these precedents, the Bench noted that in deciding bail applications, the Apex Court laid down a test wherein a “Court must necessarily examine if the crime in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest”, stating that “offences against the society with overriding public interest even if it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court”.

Observing that in the matter at hand, “the offences in question are purely individual/personal in nature”, the Bench concluded that no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings and that keeping these proceedings pending will only swell the mental agony of the petitioner and the third respondent and their parents as well.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Madras High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all related proceedings.

Cause Title: Kamaraj v. State, Represented by the Inspector of Police & Others

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocate. M. Vijayragavan

Respondents: R. Vinodhraja, Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment