POCSO Case Against Minor Can Be Quashed On Parties Arriving At Mutual Settlement: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on Friday allowed a petition filed by a minor boy and set aside the investigation initiated against him under sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl, following a mutual settlement having arrived at between the parties.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the victim were close friends and were infatuated to each other. Several Courts have considered the impact of hauling an under aged boy into the web of the provisions under the POCSO Act has clearly held that POCSO Act was not meant to punish the accused who were in love with the victims therein."

Further it said, "Adolescence is a continuum of development process in the life of a child metamorphosing into young age or an adult. It would not be inapt to notice that young children or boys who have not yet reached the age of 18 years, many a time, without realizing or being ignorant of the consequences of their act which they perform in the frenzy of youth, emerge themselves as offenders under the provisions of POCSO Act and face serious consequences."

The bench opined, "Romantic love between a boy and a girl of the age of adolescence sometimes arising out of infatuations result in the boy embroiling himself into the vortex of the provisions of the POCSO Act."

Taking into account the good academic record of the petition the bench said, "The laudable object for which the POCSO Act was brought into effect cannot be forgotten, but that would not mean that it is meant to punish young children who would fall in love and commit such acts which would become punishable under the Act."

However, it clarified that this Court is not painting every incidence of sexual activity of any kind that would become an offence under the POCSO Act, with the same brush, but there are cases of the kind, like the one at hand, where the adolescents have indulged in such acts due to lack of knowledge of consequence of law.

Following which the bench held, "He is a student of "A" Grade. The act has been done in the frenzy of youth, owing to human curiosity, coupled with biological cravings. These are acts which are entirely different from acts which become offences under Section 5 which deals with aggravated penetrated sexual assault. These provisions are not known to the students who are themselves minors and get infatuated."

Further it said, "I deem it appropriate to take note of the settlement, accept the same and free the petitioner from the mesh of crime that he is enmeshed into, failing which, the future of a student would be put to insurmountable jeopardy, more so, with the settlement arrived at, no useful purpose would be served by sending the boy to face the rigmarole of criminal trial, on the allegation of provisions of the POCSO Act, as the boy who would be eventually acquitted, would become persecuted of the alleged crime for all his life."

It added, "Therefore, I deem it appropriate to "bend the ark of justice" in favour of the petitioner and annihilate the proceedings against him."

Earlier, the court had directed that further investigation in the matter shall remain stayed, which shall be subject to the result of further orders being passed.

The petitioner and the complainant's daughter are minors even as on date, and were in a relationship, which resulted in the present crime being registered. Advocates Prateek Chandramouli and Vidyashree KS appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the parties have settled the issue and sought termination of the proceedings on account of such settlement.

The Petitioner relied on the judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of Vijayalakshmi vs State, wherein the case was quashed on the grounds that the intention of POCSO Act is not to punish a teenage boy who is in a relationship with a teenage girl.

It was also argued that when the complainants themselves do not wish to prosecute the case then continuing criminal proceedings is only going to be a miscarriage of justice.

The prosecution had objected to the same on the ground that the offence is under the POCSO Act and settlement cannot be accepted.

Case Title: AJ v. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 355

Date of Order: 09-09-2022

Appearance: PRATEEK CHANDRAMOULI A/W SMT.VIDYASHREE K.S., ADVOCATE for petitioners

K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1

M.MAHENDRA, ADVOCATE for R2