Kerala High Court Reaffirms Non-Quashability of POCSO Charges Despite Settlement

1. Introduction

The case of XXXXXX v. State of Kerala was brought before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The petitioner, who was the defacto complainant, sought an order quashing the charge sheet filed against the accused under various provisions, including Sections 7, 8, 11(1), 12, and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and the corresponding charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner argued that the charges should be dismissed as she no longer wished to proceed with the allegations and had reached an understanding with the accused. The State, however, opposed the request, emphasizing the seriousness of sexual offences against minors.

The key issue before the Court was whether the proceedings could be quashed based on a settlement between the defacto complainant and the accused in a POCSO case, and whether the special protection accorded to minors under the POCSO Act could be compromised by private settlements or the victim’s changed stance.

2. Summary of the Judgment

After hearing both parties, the Court held that serious offences under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed on the basis of a settlement, even when the victim herself requests it. The Court pointed out that the alleged acts were not merely a private dispute but constituted a grave crime against a minor. As such, the public interest in prosecuting and preventing child sexual offences overrides any settlement between the parties. Relying on a Supreme Court decision (2024 INSC 846), the Court reinforced that offences under POCSO are crimes of a serious nature, implying they affect society at large and cannot be simply disposed of by private compromise. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for quashing the charge sheet.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Court primarily relied on the decision in Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2024 INSC 846], where the Supreme Court emphasized that heinous offences, especially those involving minors, cannot be withdrawn or settled by the parties. In that case, the High Court had incorrectly taken note of a settlement to quash proceedings for POCSO offences, but it was ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the Court referred to its own earlier order (Annexure A4) in which it had rejected a plea for discharge by the accused, affirming that prime facie evidence existed for prosecuting offences under Section 354A(iv) of the IPC and Section 11(i) read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act. This consistent judicial stance underscores the principle that the intensity of the crime against a child must be weighed heavily, irrespective of any private understanding or affidavit by the complainant.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning is anchored in the protective scope of the POCSO Act, which aims to safeguard the interests of children and shield them from sexual offences. According to the Court:

• POCSO offences are public wrongs; they do not merely constitute private disputes between individuals.
• Legislative intent in enacting stringent provisions within the POCSO Act was to deter abuses against children and to ensure victim protection throughout the judicial process.
• Where evidence discloses a prima facie offence under POCSO, courts must allow the criminal process to continue, in order to maintain the integrity of the statutory protection offered to children.
• The compromise, even on an affidavit by the victim, may not override the strong public interest in punishing sexual offenders who target children.

3.3 Impact

This decision reinforces the broader judicial consensus that POCSO offences cannot be treated as bailable or negotiable disputes. Its key impacts include:

• Deterring future settlements in serious criminal cases involving minors, thereby discouraging attempts to nullify legal proceedings through private arrangements.
• Supporting the victim by ensuring the prosecution continues to trial, regardless of any shifts in the victim’s stance, thus protecting vulnerable victims from external pressures or inducements.
• Strengthening the POCSO framework by emphasizing that courts will strictly enforce legal safeguards meant to protect children from sexual harm.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

POCSO Act: The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, is special legislation enacted to combat sexual crimes against children. It establishes child-friendly procedures for recording statements and conducting trials, and prescribes stringent punishment for different forms of sexual assaults on minors.

Quashment under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (or Section 528 BNSS, 2023): This provision empowers High Courts to dismiss or “quash” criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of legal processes or to secure the ends of justice. However, courts have clarified that such relief is limited in scope where the alleged offences are grievous and impact society at large.

Heinous Offences: These are crimes that are considered especially serious, sometimes involving violence or the sexual exploitation of vulnerable victims, including children. Heinous offences are seldom quashable merely by private compromise because they raise significant concerns of public interest and collective morality.

5. Conclusion

In XXXXXX v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court has once again underscored that child protection remains a paramount consideration in the criminal justice system. Sexual offences against minors, as codified under the POCSO Act, invoke public interest and cannot be resolved through private compromises, even if the victim seeks such a resolution. This decision ensures that the legislative objective of safeguarding children from sexual crimes remains uncompromised.

Essentially, the ruling highlights the courts’ duty to protect minors, uphold public morality, and enforce the stringent standards laid under the POCSO Act. By dismissing the petition for quashment, the Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that the mandates of child protection statutes must remain paramount, signaling that legal processes designed to protect children should persist to their logical conclusion, irrespective of private settlements.