POCSO Case Initiated Because Engagement Was Called Off: Kerala High Court Quashes Case Upon Noting Subsequent Reconciliation & Marriage Of Parties
The Kerala High Court recently quashed proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man alleged to have sexually abused the victim. Justice Gopinath P. noted that the allegations against the petitioner accused had been launched following his withdrawal from marriage with the victim, after the engagement ceremony...
The Kerala High Court recently quashed proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man alleged to have sexually abused the victim.
Justice Gopinath P. noted that the allegations against the petitioner accused had been launched following his withdrawal from marriage with the victim, after the engagement ceremony had been performed. The Court also took note that the proceedings were being sought to be quashed herein following the reconciliation and marriage of the parties.
"This is...a case, where the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner will be prejudicial to the victim as well. Moreover, even going by the First Information Statement of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant/victim, an engagement ceremony had been conducted in connection with the then proposed marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant/victim and the complaint came to be filed only on account of the fact that the petitioner had thereafter withdrawn from the marriage proposal," the Court observed.
The petitioner was accused of sexually abusing the victim on several occasions when she had been a minor, and thereby committing the offences under the POCSO Act and IPC after he withdrew from marriage.
Advocates Anand Kalyanakrishnan and C. Dheeraj Rajan submitted that the petitioner was innocent of the allegations against him, and that the marriage between the petitioner and victim had been solemnized when the former had been released on interim bail.
Public Prosecutor G. Sudheer also added that the victim had no subsisting grievance against the petitioner.
Taking note of the totality of the factual circumstances, and the fact that the continuance of the proceedings would be prejudicious to the now married couple, the Court proceeded to quash the case against the petitioner.
Advocate Abraham Mathan also appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 763
Case Title: XXXX v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case Number: Crl. M.C. No. 10966 of 2023