IMPORTANT POINT
The court can quash POCSO proceedings if the circumstances indicate that continuing them would cause undue hardship, especially when the victim and accused have married.

ORDER :

M.Nagaprasanna, J.

The petitioner/accused is before this Court seeking quashment of proceedings in Special Case No.242 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 of the IPC and Sections 5(L), 5(J)(II), 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri Rohith S.V., learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri Thejesh, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Nagaraju H.R., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

A complaint comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent, the mother of the victim alleging that the petitioner and her daughter were in love as they were students of the same institution “Shree Kantheshwara School”. It is further alleged that the petitioner used to meet the complainant’s daughter and threaten or harass her if she would not come out with the petitioner. It transpires that the petitioner used to take the victim on his bike to an isolated place and commit sexual assault on her. The complaint comes to be registered on the aforesaid circumstance on 15-02-2023, which becomes a crime in Crime No.14 of 2023 for the afore- quoted offences. The police, after investigation, file a charge sheet against the petitioner maintaining the afore-quoted offences. The petitioner when the crime was registered on 15-02-2023 was taken into custody and remains in custody. What happens is, due to the act of the petitioner, the victim becomes pregnant and gives birth to a child. The father continues to be in prison. The petitioner/accused has therefore presented the subject petition seeking closure of the proceedings on account of a compromise.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner and the victim were in love. As at the relevant point in time, the petitioner was 21 years and the victim was 16 years and 9 months old, the parent of the victim i.e., the complainant was not willing to give the daughter in marriage and registers a crime. By then, the victim had become pregnant. Now the family members of both the petitioner and the victim have come forward to get the victim married to the petitioner. Learned counsel for Petitioner would submit that the petitioner is also willing to marry the victim, as they were always in love with each other.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner has indulged in acts which would clearly become offences under the POCSO Act. Even if the victim would turn hostile, the petitioner should come out clean after a full blown trial. Cases concerning POCSO cannot be permitted to be quashed on account of a compromise between the parties, as they are offences against the State, heinous and punishable with imprisonment beyond 10 years.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant would submit that the parties would want to settle the dispute and get the accused and the victim married. He would seek closure of the proceedings toeing the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. In the light of the petitioner coming forward to get married to the victim and the families also realizing that marriage would be the only solution, in the light of a child being born from the act of the petitioner with the victim, this Court on 13-06-2024 had passed the following order:

“The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special case No.242 of 2023 pending before the Additional District & Sessions Judge and FTSC-1 at Mysore, arising out of crime in Crime No.14 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Section 376 (2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 5(L), 5(J)(II)& 6 of the Protection of Children f