Kerala High Court Quashes POCSO Charges Against Man After His Marriage To The Survivor

In the first case, a Bench comprising of Justice K Haripal recently quashed a chargesheet filed by the police in February 2019 charging the man with sexual assault and other charges under the Indian Penal Code as well as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The prosecutrix was aged 17 when the FIR was registered. The case came to light after her father, the complainant, approached the police stating that his daughter was missing. Later, the police added offences of repeated rape of same woman under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Sections 4 read with 3(a) and 6 read with 5(1) of the POCSO. Charges of kidnapping, slavery and house trespass under Sections 363, 370 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code were also laid against the man.

Seeking a quash on the charges, the man moved the High Court stating that he married the prosecutrix last year in November and that the matter was settled between the parties. The man also averred that he and the prosecutrix, who has attained majority, are now living as husband and wife. In support of the petition, he produced affidavits filed by the prosecutrix and the complainant stating that they have no objection to the quash on proceedings.
Allowing the petition, the Court opined that continuing the proceedings would be futil, because the prosecutrix and the complainant, the material witnesses would not support the case.

"In the light of the fact that, they have entered into matrimonial relationship, there is no purpose in continuing the proceedings," the court therefore said.

Justice Haripal in his order also states,

"The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in such cases courts should always take a pragmatic view. When the parties themselves settle the dispute and approach the high court for quashing the proceedings, the High Court cannot refuse to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC."

Observing that the well-being of the couple also necessitated a termination of proceedings and that public interest would not be hampered by a quash of the case, the Court proceeded to quash the case.

"Recognising the said settlement augurs better in the interests of all" 

In a similar order dated April 16, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed a quash of POCSO charges against a man who was supposedly in love and had married the defacto complainant.

Remarking that the offences alleged were "purely personal in nature and no serious prejudice will be caused to the public", the Court allowed the settlement and quashed charges. 

CASE: XXX v. XXX and Others; (Name redacted) v. State of Kerala and Anr.

COUNSEL in XXX v XXX: Advocate Abraham Mathan for the petitioner, Advocate K Anand for the prosecutrix and her father, PP KB Udayakumar for the State.

COUNSEL in (Name redacted) v. State of Kerala: Advocate Jithin Babu A for Joy, Advocate Arun Samuel for defacto complainant, PP CM Kamappu for the State.