XX v. State of Kerala

Read Judgment : https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/jjmo/

Citation: 2025 (4) KLR 109 : 2025 KER 30289
Court: High Court of Kerala
Judge: C. Jayachandran, J.
Case Numbers: Crl. M.C. Nos. 6880 of 2022 and 7427 of 2024; 2 April 2025
Parties: XX (Petitioner) v. State of Kerala (Respondent)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Quashment of Proceedings – Settlement Leading to Marriage – Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Petitions to quash criminal proceedings under POCSO Act and IPC for penetrative sexual assault and related offences allowed. Petitioners married victims after they attained majority, supported by affidavits, marriage certificates, and victim statements confirming harmonious family lives. 

Held

While POCSO Act offences are serious and generally non-compoundable, quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. permissible in exceptional cases where genuine settlement results in marriage, promoting family harmony and rendering conviction unlikely. Continuation of proceedings would cause injustice and constitute abuse of process. 

Distinguished Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3193] due to differing factual context. 

Followed Vishnu v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KLT 754] and other High Court precedents. 

All proceedings in Crime No. 466/2019 (S.C. No. 213/2020) and Crime No. 63/2020 (S.C. No. 212/2020) quashed.

Crime No.466/2019 of Santhanpara Police Station, Idukki Against Sc No.213 Of 2020 of Fast Track Special Court, Kattappana (POCSO); Crime No.63/2020 of Karinkunnam Police Station, Idukki Against Sc No.212 Of 2020 of Special Court Under POCSO Act, Idukki

Petitioner by Advs. S.Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Prerith Philip Joseph, Anilkumar C.R., Bobby George, Baby Simon, Joy C. Paul, Abhilash Muraleedharan, Noble George, Madhu V.

Respondents by Adv.Anand Kalyanakrishnan, Adv. E.C. Bineesh – Public Prosecutor, C.N. Prabhakaran–Senior Public Prosecutor

Facts

The case involves two separate criminal cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), where the petitioners sought quashment of proceedings based on settlements with the victims.

  1. Crl.M.C. No. 6880/2022:
    • Crime Details: Crime No. 466/2019, Santhanpara Police Station, Idukki, pending as S.C. No. 213/2020 at Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Kattappana.
    • Allegations: The petitioner allegedly committed penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl repeatedly between 22.12.2018 and 24.12.2018, and on 11.09.2019, resulting in her pregnancy. Offences charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(a), 4, 5(ii)(j), 5(l), and 6 of the POCSO Act.
    • Settlement: The petitioner married the victim after she attained majority, as evidenced by a marriage certificate (Annexure-VI). The victim filed an affidavit (Annexure-V) stating her consent to the marriage, family acceptance, and no objection to quashing the proceedings.
  2. Crl.M.C. No. 7427/2024:
    • Crime Details: Crime No. 63/2020, Karinkunnam Police Station, Idukki, pending as S.C. No. 212/2020 at Special Court (POCSO), Idukki.
    • Allegations: The petitioner allegedly enticed a 17-year-old girl from lawful guardianship in June 2017, committed penetrative sexual assault from May 2019 to September 2019, resulting in her pregnancy, and kidnapped her on 09.02.2020. Offences charged under Sections 363, 366(A), 370, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 3(a), 4, 5(l), 5(j)(ii), and 6 of the POCSO Act.
    • Settlement: The petitioner married the victim on 24.01.2020, as per a marriage certificate (Annexure-A3). The victim’s affidavit (Annexure-A6) confirmed their marriage, a daughter born in wedlock, her enrollment in a B.Sc. Nursing course, and no surviving grievances, attributing the complaint to a misunderstanding.

In both cases, the victims reiterated their affidavits’ contents in statements to the Investigating Officers, confirming their happy married lives with the petitioners and desire to quash the proceedings.

Issues

  1. Can criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) based on a settlement between the accused and the victim, especially when the settlement results in their marriage?
  2. Do the circumstances of these cases justify quashing the proceedings despite the serious nature of POCSO Act offences?

Arguments

  • Petitioners: Argued that the settlements were genuine, supported by marriage certificates and victim affidavits. The continuation of proceedings would disrupt their harmonious family lives, including the welfare of children born from the marriages. The victims’ consent and lack of grievances indicated a low likelihood of conviction, rendering further proceedings futile.
  • Respondents (State): Represented by Public Prosecutors, likely argued that POCSO Act offences are serious, non-compoundable, and impact society, making quashment based on settlement inappropriate, as per precedents like Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan.
  • Amicus Curiae: Smt. A. Parvathi Menon provided a report analyzing legal and societal perspectives, aiding the Court in evaluating the quashment’s implications.

Legal Precedents

  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303]: The High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not limited by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Proceedings for non-compoundable offences can be quashed if it serves justice, but heinous offences like rape, with societal impact, should not be quashed based on settlement alone.
  • Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3193]: The Supreme Court cautioned against quashing POCSO Act cases based on settlements, emphasizing their societal impact and non-private nature. However, the facts involved a teacher’s assault on a student, distinct from consensual relationships culminating in marriage.
  • Vishnu v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KLT 754]: The Kerala High Court held that while sexual offence proceedings should not generally be quashed based on settlement, extraordinary circumstances may warrant quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to achieve justice.
  • Various High Court Judgments: Courts in Delhi, Punjab and Haryana, Madras, Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, and Orissa have quashed POCSO Act proceedings when the accused married the victim, citing family harmony, low conviction prospects, and justice. However, some courts (e.g., Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat) have refused quashment despite settlements.

Reasoning

The Court acknowledged the general principle that serious offences under the POCSO Act, being non-compoundable and societally significant, should not be quashed solely based on settlements. However, it distinguished the present cases due to their unique circumstances:

  • Both petitioners married the victims after they attained majority, establishing stable family lives, as evidenced by affidavits, marriage certificates, and victim statements.
  • The victims expressed no grievances, and one was pursuing higher education, with the petitioner caring for their child, indicating genuine rehabilitation and settlement.
  • Continuing the proceedings would disrupt the victims’ and their children’s lives, cause trauma, and serve no purpose given the victims’ unlikely testimony against their husbands, making conviction remote.
  • The Court emphasized that quashment in such cases promotes justice by preserving family harmony and preventing abuse of process, aligning with Section 482 Cr.P.C.’s purpose.
  • While serious POCSO Act offences typically resist quashment, less grievous offences or cases with mitigating factors (e.g., marriage and victim consent) may be quashed on a case-by-case basis, as supported by multiple High Court precedents.

Decision

The Court allowed both Crl.M.C. petitions, quashing:

  • All proceedings in Crime No. 466/2019 (S.C. No. 213/2020, Fast Track Special Court, Kattappana) for Crl.M.C. No. 6880/2022.
  • All proceedings in Crime No. 63/2020 (S.C. No. 212/2020, Special Court (POCSO), Idukki) for Crl.M.C. No. 7427/2024.

The Court found that the settlements were genuine, the marriages mitigated the offences’ societal impact, and continuing the proceedings would be unjust and futile.

Significance

This judgment reinforces that while POCSO Act offences are serious, High Courts may exercise Section 482 Cr.P.C. powers to quash proceedings in exceptional cases where settlements lead to marriage and family stability. It highlights the need for a fact-specific approach, balancing societal interests with individual justice, and aligns with precedents favoring quashment in similar circumstances.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

  1. What was the primary legal basis for the petitioners’ request to quash the criminal proceedings in XX v. State of Kerala?
    a) Lack of evidence against the accused
    b) Settlement between the parties leading to marriage
    c) Procedural irregularities in the investigation
    d) Expiry of the limitation period for prosecutionAnswer: b) Settlement between the parties leading to marriage
  2. Under which statutory provision did the Kerala High Court exercise its power to quash the proceedings?
    a) Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.
    b) Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
    c) Section 376 of the IPC
    d) Section 6 of the POCSO ActAnswer: b) Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
  3. Which Supreme Court case was distinguished by the Kerala High Court due to differing factual circumstances?
    a) Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303]
    b) Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3193]
    c) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 SCC (Cri) 426]
    d) Vishnu v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KLT 754]Answer: b) Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3193]
  4. What was a key factor considered by the Court in allowing the quashment of proceedings?
    a) The severity of the punishment under the POCSO Act
    b) The remote likelihood of conviction due to the victims’ marriage to the accused
    c) The financial status of the accused
    d) The absence of a child born from the relationshipAnswer: b) The remote likelihood of conviction due to the victims’ marriage to the accused
  5. Which of the following was NOT a reason cited by the Court for quashing the proceedings?
    a) Promotion of family harmony
    b) Prevention of abuse of process
    c) Lack of jurisdiction of the trial court
    d) Injustice to the victims and their childrenAnswer: c) Lack of jurisdiction of the trial court

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

  1. What was the main issue before the Kerala High Court in XX v. State of Kerala?
    The main issue was whether criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act and IPC could be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. based on settlements between the accused and victims, particularly when the settlements resulted in their marriage.
  2. Why did the petitioners seek to quash the proceedings?
    The petitioners sought quashment because they had married the victims after they attained majority, and the victims, through affidavits and statements, confirmed they were living happily with the petitioners and had no grievances. They argued that continuing the proceedings would disrupt their family lives and serve no purpose.
  3. How did the Court justify quashing the proceedings despite the serious nature of POCSO Act offences?
    The Court held that while POCSO Act offences are serious and generally non-compoundable, exceptional circumstances—such as genuine settlements culminating in marriage, family harmony, and a remote chance of conviction—justify quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent injustice and abuse of process.
  4. What role did the victims’ affidavits and statements play in the Court’s decision?
    The victims’ affidavits and statements were crucial, as they confirmed the marriages, the absence of grievances, and the desire to quash the proceedings. These indicated a genuine settlement and a low likelihood of the victims testifying against their husbands, supporting the Court’s decision to quash.
  5. How did the Court distinguish this case from Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan?
    The Court noted that Ramji Lal involved a teacher’s sexual assault on a student, a non-consensual act with no subsequent relationship, whereas in XX v. State of Kerala, the accused and victims had consensual relationships that led to marriage and stable family lives, justifying a different approach.
  6. What precedents did the Court rely on to support its decision?
    The Court relied on Vishnu v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KLT 754] and judgments from the Delhi, Madras, Bombay, Punjab and Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, and Orissa High Courts, which quashed POCSO Act proceedings in similar cases involving marriage and settlement.
  7. What broader legal principle did the Court establish regarding POCSO Act cases?
    The Court established that there is no absolute bar on quashing POCSO Act proceedings based on settlement, especially in cases with mitigating factors like marriage. Each case must be evaluated on its specific facts, balancing societal interests with individual justice.
  8. What was the significance of the marriage between the accused and victims in this case?
    The marriages were significant as they demonstrated a genuine resolution of disputes, ensured family stability, and reduced the societal stigma of the offences. They also made conviction unlikely, as the victims were unlikely to testify against their husbands.
  9. Did the Court consider the societal impact of POCSO Act offences?
    Yes, the Court acknowledged that POCSO Act offences have a serious societal impact and are not private disputes. However, it found that the marriages and settlements mitigated this impact, making quashment appropriate in these exceptional circumstances.
  10. What was the role of the Amicus Curiae in this case?
    The Amicus Curiae, Smt. A. Parvathi Menon, provided a report analyzing legal and societal perspectives on quashing POCSO Act proceedings based on settlement, which assisted the Court in resolving the complex issues involved.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • Sri Malakappa v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company
    Motor Accident Compensation – Loss of Dependency – Husband, though able-bodied, could not be assumed to be entirely non-dependent absent evidence of his employment.
  • ASF Buildtech v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co.
    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 7, 11, 16, 21, 23, 37 – Power of Arbitral Tribunal to Implead Non-Signatories – Group of Companies Doctrine – Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Notice under Section 21 – Competence-Competence Principle.
  • Analysis of the Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025
    The Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025, notified by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), provide a framework for compounding certain offences committed under the Act.
  • Res Judicata in Criminal Proceedings
    The principle of res judicata, derived from the Latin maxim res judicata pro veritate accipitur (a matter adjudged is taken as true), is a fundamental doctrine in civil law that prevents the re-litigation of issues already decided between the same parties.
  • Krishna Kumar Kedia v. Union of India
    Penal Code, 1860, Sections 407, 420, 465, 471 – Forgery and Misappropriation – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Reduced.
  • Shenbagavalli v. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District
    Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Essential Ingredients – Absence of Proximity and Instigation – Quashing of Chargesheet.
  • Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025
    These rules may be called the Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025.
  • Kerala State Elderly Commission Act, 2025
    An Act to constitute an Elderly Commission for giving guidelines in matters related to the welfare and protection of the elderly and to enable their rehabilitation and to undertake and carry out schemes and activities necessary for making use of their skills and experience for utilizing it for the general public and to ensure the protection of rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
  • Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association v. Union of India
    Land Allotment Dispute – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975
  • Central Bureau of Investigation v. Surendra Patwa
    Administrative and criminal proceedings operate independently; procedural lapses in former do not nullify latter.