IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J.
Praveen Prakash - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 5035 OF 2023
Decided On : 10-09-2024
Quash - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Section 354D, PoCSO Act Sections 11(iv), 12 - The court interpreted the provisions of IPC and PoCSO Act, emphasizing the necessity of demonstrating sexual intent in communications to establish culpability, leading to the quashment of the FIR and proceedings against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR and final report alleging offences under IPC and PoCSO Act, claiming the allegations were based solely on sending messages and calls to a minor without evidence of sexual intent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide evidence of messages or calls that demonstrated sexual intent, thus no prima facie case was established under the relevant sections of the IPC and PoCSO Act.
Issues: Whether the allegations of sending messages and calls to a minor constituted offences under IPC and PoCSO Act without evidence of sexual intent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere communication without evidence of sexual intent does not constitute an offence under the PoCSO Act, necessitating quashment of the proceedings.
Result: The petition to quash the FIR and proceedings was allowed.
ORDER :
A. Badharudeen, J.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A2 Final Report and all further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.280/2022 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode, arose out of crime No.691/2021 of Nadakavu Police Station, Kozhikode. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above crime.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents.
3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) as well as under Section 12 r/w 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as 'PoCSO Act' for short).
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, going by the First Information Statement as well as the additional statement given by the victim, the only allegation is that the accused used to send messages and calls to the victim, who was aged 17 years, to her mobile phone and disturbed her. It is pointed out that the messages so sent are neither disclosed in the statements nor available in the prosecution records. Therefore, none of the offences made out from the prosecution records so that the matter would require quashment on merits. He also submitted that now the victim filed an affidavit stating that the matter has been settled and further action in this matter is not necessary. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant also conceded filing of affidavit, supporting settlement.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner and submitted that acting on the affidavit filed by the victim or their parents, settlement of PoCSO offences is not legally permissible.
6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, settlement of PoCSO offences, acting on the affidavit filed by the victim or their parents, is not legally permissible. Therefore, quashment on the ground of settlement could not yield. However, on reading the First Information Statement and the additional statement given by the victim, it could be seen prima facie that the allegation is confined to sending of messages and making calls to the victim, who is aged 17 years and the disturbance on that count.
7. Section 11 of the PoCSO Act deals with sexual harassment. It is provided that a person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent commits overt acts dealt in sub-sections (i) to (vi) mentioned therein. Here, the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner herein committed offence punishable under Section 11(iv) r/w. 12 of the PoCSO Act. Section 11(iv) provides that a person said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent, repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through electronic, digital or any other means. Thus mere sending of messages or having chats with a child would not constitute an offence under Section 11(iv) punishable under Section 12 of the PoCSO Act unless the messages or chats would prima facie depict the sexual intent. In order to find the ingredients to bring home an offence under Section 11(iv) of PoCSO Act, the messages or chats to be part of the prosecution records so as to scrutinize the same to find as to whether the materials would prima facie show that the accused committed the offence. Thus it is not justifiable to fasten criminal culpability to an accused without having scrutiny of the chats or messages or any other overt acts with certainty. When the messages or chats not even collected and made part of the prosecution records, it is incorrect to hold that offence under Section 11(iv) of the PoCSO Act is made out prima facie.
8. Here, the prosecution a
AI
The court established that for offences under the PoCSO Act, evidence of sexual intent in communications is essential to constitute a prima facie case.
(1) Sexual harassment of child – Settlement of POCSO offences, acting on affidavit filed by victim or their parents, is not legally permissible.(2) Mere sending of messages or having chats with a chi....
The absence of sexual intent in the victim's statements negated the applicability of the alleged offences under the IPC and POCSO Act.
Serious offences under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed based on compromise or victim's affidavit, reaffirming the need for societal protection.
The court clarified the applicability of specific sections of IPC and POCSO Act based on the evidence of the case, distinguishing between the roles of the accused.
Serious offences under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed based on settlements, as they affect public interest and the dignity of victims.
The court ruled that allegations of sexual harassment under the POCSO Act must be evaluated on evidence, even amidst claims of family rivalry, necessitating a trial.
Serious offences under the POCSO Act cannot be settled; quashment based on settlement is impermissible due to public interest considerations.
Allegations of sexual offences raised after significant delay post-marriage were found unsustainable, indicating potential misuse of the PoCSO Act.
The court ruled that the allegations did not constitute sexual assault as defined under the PoCSO Act, emphasizing the lack of sexual intent in the accused's actions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.