Kerala High Court: POCSO Cases Cannot Be Quashed Solely on the Basis of Settlement

The Kerala High Court has ruled that criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot ordinarily be quashed merely because the accused and the victim or the victim’s family have reached a settlement. The court clarified that even in cases involving comparatively less serious offences, a compromise cannot automatically become a ground for terminating criminal proceedings.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and K V Jayakumar delivered the ruling on November 5 while deciding a reference made by a single judge. The reference sought clarity on whether POCSO proceedings could be quashed when the accused and the victim had reached an amicable settlement.

The Bench observed that the victim’s willingness to forgive the accused or the family’s desire to withdraw the proceedings cannot independently determine whether prosecution for a sexual offence against a child should continue.

Background: Dispute Over Quashing of POCSO Proceedings

The case concerned a 49-year-old madrassa teacher accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old female student. The allegations related to incidents on July 1, 2018, and subsequent days, involving alleged physical contact, including touching the student's breast.

On April 24, 2019, the survivor’s father lodged a complaint, following which the police registered a case under the POCSO Act and relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

The accused subsequently approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. Initially, the court declined to treat an affidavit submitted by the survivor as sufficient grounds for terminating the case.

After attaining majority, the survivor filed another affidavit stating that the complaint had resulted from a mistaken impression and that she had been misled by people hostile towards the accused. She also expressed that she had no grievance against him and that the pending proceedings were affecting her prospects.

The matter raised a broader legal question because different single-judge benches of the Kerala High Court had taken conflicting positions on whether POCSO cases could be quashed following a settlement. While one view permitted quashing in certain circumstances, another held that a compromise could not be the basis for terminating such proceedings.

The reference was therefore placed before the Division Bench to settle the legal position.

Why Settlement Cannot Automatically End POCSO Proceedings

The Division Bench emphasised that the POCSO Act is a special legislation enacted to protect children from sexual assault, sexual harassment and exploitation.

According to the court, offences under the Act are not merely private disputes between individuals but also involve wider public interest. Therefore, the victim or her family cannot independently bring criminal proceedings to an end through a private settlement.

The Bench further clarified that a survivor attaining the age of 18 during the pendency of proceedings does not retrospectively alter the legal character of the alleged offence. If the essential ingredients of a POCSO offence were present when the victim was a child, subsequent attainment of majority does not erase the alleged criminality.

The court observed that the criminality of an act cannot be extinguished through a subsequent arrangement or compromise, particularly in cases involving sexual assault.

It also rejected the argument that sexual assault involving physical contact without penetration could automatically be treated as a private dispute suitable for settlement.

The Bench noted that even offences involving physical contact without aggravated forms of sexual violence could seriously affect a child's dignity, bodily integrity and psychological well-being.

Factors Courts Must Consider While Examining Quashing Pleas

The High Court stated that courts must consider several factors while examining requests to quash POCSO proceedings, including:

• The nature and seriousness of the alleged offence.
• The age of the child at the time of the incident.
• The relationship between the accused and the victim.
• The circumstances in which the alleged offence occurred.
• Whether the accused occupied a position of trust or authority over the victim.

The court also cautioned that allowing settlements to become routine grounds for quashing POCSO cases could expose vulnerable survivors to pressure, coercion and inducement to withdraw from prosecution.

It held that the criminal justice system cannot permit offences against children to be converted into private disputes resolved through negotiated settlements.

Accordingly, the Division Bench clarified the legal position and remitted the accused's plea to the single judge for a decision on its merits.

The ruling reinforces the protective objective of the POCSO Act and clarifies that a victim's subsequent consent or willingness to settle cannot, by itself, override the public interest involved in prosecuting offences against children.