Kerala HC: POCSO cases cannot be quashed merely on settlement between accused and survivor

The Kerala High Court has held that cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot ordinarily be quashed merely because the accused and the survivor have reached a settlement, even if the alleged offence is relatively less serious. The ruling came in a case involving a 49-year-old madrassa teacher accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old student.

Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and K V Jayakumar issued the ruling while resolving conflicting views among single judges of the court on whether such cases could be closed after a compromise between the accused and the victim. The Division Bench sent the accused’s plea back to the single judge for a decision on its merits.

The court said criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act cannot be terminated solely on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the victim or the victim’s family. It held that the survivor’s willingness to forgive the accused, or the family’s desire to end the case, cannot by itself determine whether a prosecution involving a serious sexual offence should continue.

According to the bench, offences under the POCSO Act involve a larger public interest and cannot be treated as private disputes that can be resolved through a negotiated arrangement. It warned that allowing such settlements could expose vulnerable victims to pressure or inducement to withdraw from prosecution.

The case arose from a complaint filed by the survivor’s father on April 24, 2019. Police registered a POCSO case against the teacher, alleging sexual harassment and sexual assault involving physical contact by a person in a position of trust or authority.

The accused had allegedly touched the 17-year-old student’s breast on July 1, 2018, and on subsequent days. He later approached the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.

The court initially declined to accept an affidavit from the survivor as grounds to terminate the case. After turning 18, she filed another affidavit stating that the complaint had arisen from a mistaken impression and that she had been ill-advised by people opposed to the accused. She said she had no grievance against him and that the pending case was affecting her future prospects.

Despite this, the Division Bench refused to treat the settlement as sufficient grounds to close the proceedings. It said the criminality of an act cannot be extinguished merely through a later compromise, particularly in cases involving sexual assault.

The court emphasised that the POCSO Act was enacted to protect children from sexual assault, harassment and exploitation. It observed that even an act of sexual assault involving physical contact, without more aggravated forms of violence, can seriously affect a child’s dignity, bodily integrity and psychological well-being.

The bench also said the nature of the act, the child’s age, the relationship between the accused and the victim, the circumstances of the offence, and the accused’s position of trust or authority are all relevant factors. It added that a survivor attaining adulthood during the proceedings does not retrospectively alter the legal character of an alleged offence committed when she was a child.