IMPORTANT POINT
Serious and heinous offences, especially those affecting the society at large, cannot be quashed based on a settlement between the parties, as it is in the interest of society that the offender should be punished to deter others from committing similar crimes.

ORDER :

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 Final Report in S.C.No.2410/2023 on the files of the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, ‘the POCSO Act’ hereinafter), Thiruvananthapuram, arose out of Crime No.862/2023 of Kadinamkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the relevant records.

3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 377 of the IPC, Sections 3(a)(d) r/w Section 4(2), 5(l)(p) r/w Section 6, 7 r/w Section 8, 9(l)(p) r/w Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, ‘the POCSO Act’ hereinafter) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short, ‘the SC/ST Act’ hereinafter). The prosecution allegation is that, the accused, who was the dance teacher of the victim, belongs to Christian community (not Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe) brought the minor boy, who belongs to Hindu Panan community of Scheduled Caste and subjected him for carnal sexual intercourse on 01.09.2019. Thereafter, on a day before 25.12.2019 and on several subsequent days, the accused brought the boy to his rented house at Pukayilathoppu and continued carnal sexual intercourse with him. Later, on a Saturday, during October, 2021, the accused brought the victim in a scooter, bearing Registration No.KL 22 L 2667 to Vellanikkal Rock within the limits of Pothencode police station and subjected him for oral sex. The overt acts continued on several other days till 2.7.2023. This is the base, on which, the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire allegations are false and the matter has been settled between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 and they filed Annexures A3 and A4 affidavits, in support the settlement. Therefore, this matter would require quashment, since the victim/aggrieved person has no grievance in this matter.

5. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, repeated carnal sexual intercourse and oral insertion against a minor boy, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community, are the substratum, wherefrom the accused alleged to have committed the above offences. In a case involving offences under POCSO Act, the case cannot be settled merely acting on the affidavit filed by the mother of the victim and the victim himself, though he now attained majority. It is also pointed out that settlement of cases where the minor/minors is/are victim/victims, is not permitted by law.

6. It is true that the Apex Court in catena of decisions held that High Court can exercise its power vested under section 482 Cr.P.C. beyond the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C. It is held that High Court can even quash the proceedings relate to non-compoundable offences on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties but at the same time Apex Court sternly cautioned that the proceeding of serious and heinous offences which affects the society at large, should not be quashed on the basis of compromise executed between the parties.

7. In a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court held that High Court can quash the proceedings in the cases of non-compoundable offences on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties and observed as under:-

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that t