Source: Kerela High Court  

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice A. Badharudeen held that proceedings involving serious offences under POCSO Act cannot be quashed on the ground of compromise entered into between the parties.                     

• The Kerela High Court held this in the case of Akhil Mohanan v. State of Kerela (2024). 

What was the Background of Akhil Mohanan v. State of Kerela Case?  

• The case of the prosecution is that the victim is aged 17 years and got acquainted with the accused while studying B.Sc Chemistry. 
• The accused had promised to marry the victim. 
• On 14th February 2021 when the parents of the victim were out on their jobs, the accused visited the house of the victim. 
• He reached the house of the victim with an ice cream and thereafter compelled her to have sexual intercourse with him. 
• He forcefully subjected the victim to sexual intercourse ignoring her resistance on promise of marriage. 
• He continued the same in subsequent dates as well. 
• The prosecution alleges commission of offences under Section 450, 376 (2) (n), 354, 354A (1) (i), 354D (1) (i), 354D (1) (ii) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 4 read with 3, 6 (1) raed with 5 (1), 8 read with 7, 10 read with 9(1),12 read with 11 (iv), 15 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 66 E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). 
• The accused sought quashing of the proceedings against him under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
  • It is vehemently submitted by the accused that the allegations made are false and none of the offences are prima facie made against the accused. 
  • For the above the accused relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Vijayalakshmi & Ors v. State & Ors (2021). 
  • It is the case of the accused that since the present is the case where the relationship and consensual sex are during the period of adolescence of the parties, this is a fit case for quashing the proceedings.  
• Thus, the issue before the Court is that whether proceedings should be quashed or not.
  

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Supreme Court held that the ratio in Vijayalakshmi’s case has been held per in curium in the case of Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr v. State of Rajasthan & Ors (2024). 
• Thus, the legal position is well settled that criminal proceedings involving very serious offences under POCSO Act could not be quashed on the ground that the parties have settled the matter. 
• The Court held that in the present case there is a prims facie case made out against the accused. 
• Further, the Court also held that the proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground that the chance of conviction has become bleak as compromise has been entered into between the parties.  
• Therefore, in the present facts the Court refused to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC.

What are the Offences Under POCSO Act?

What are the Provisions for Quashing of Proceedings? 

• The proceedings can be quashed by employing provision under Section 482 of CrPC. 
• This is contained in Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• It states that nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.    
• This Section enumerates three purposes for which the High Court can exercise it’s inherent powers: 
  • to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code.   
  • to prevent abuse of the process of any court.   
  • to secure the ends of justice.

What is the Law Regarding Quashing of Proceedings under POCSO Act? 

• Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr v. State of Rajasthan & Ors (2024) 
  • The present case related to quashing of FIR registered under the POCSO Act filed before the Supreme Court. 
  • The Court in this case referred to the case of State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan (2019), wherein the Court held that whether an FIR is quashable or not depends on the following factors: 
    • Whether crime against the society or against the individual alone 
    • The seriousness of crime and how it was committed 
    • Whether offence committed under a special statute 
    • Stage of proceedings and how the accused managed to compromise with the complainant.  
  • The Court held that in the present facts the offences are of a serious nature and the FIR cannot be quashed solely on the ground that compromise was entered into between the parties.  
• Sunil Raikwar v. State and Another (2021) 
  • This is the decision delivered by the Delhi High Court. 
  • The Court in this case held that : 
    • The father of the victim cannot be permitted to settle the dispute with the accused 
    • It cannot lost sight that the accused is being prosecuted for an offence that shocks the value system of a society and this is not a matter that can be permitted to be settled as a compoundable minor offence.