IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
SIDHARTH DRAVID S/O SHIBU – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 383 of 2024
Decided On : 23-09-2024
Quashment - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections 354-D, 363; POCSO Act Sections 11(iv), 12 - The court found no prima facie evidence of sexual intent or commission of the alleged offences, leading to the quashment of proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashment of proceedings under the POCSO Act and IPC, claiming no prima facie case was made out against him, supported by the victim's statements and a settlement affidavit from the victim's mother.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the victim's statements and found no serious allegations of sexual overtures or intent, concluding that the offences under the relevant sections were not made out.
Issues: Whether the proceedings against the petitioner could be quashed based on the lack of prima facie evidence of the alleged offences under the IPC and POCSO Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of sexual intent in the victim's statements precluded the application of the relevant sections of the IPC and POCSO Act.
Result: The petition for quashment of proceedings was allowed.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashment of the proceedings in S.C. No. 637/2023 on the files of the Fast Track Special Court for the trial of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act [hereinafter referred as ‘POCSO Act’ for short] cases, Nedumangad. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, in detail. Perused the relevant materials available.
3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 354-D and 363 of IPC as well as under Section 11(iv) read with 12 of the POCSO Act.
4. While seeking quashment of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, going by the statements of the victim viz. FIS and 161 statement, none of the above said offences made out, prima facie. Therefore, quashment of the proceedings sought for, on merits would succeed. He also would submit that, apart from meritorious interference in this matter by way of quashment, the matter has been now settled and the mother of the victim has filed an affidavit supporting the settlement. Therefore, quashment of the proceedings sought for, is liable to be allowed on merits or otherwise in view of the affidavit supporting settlement.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed quashment of the matter on merits and on the ground of settlement. At the same time, the learned Public Prosecutor also conceded that, in the statements given by the victim, no serious allegation as to sexual overtures at the instance of the accused could be seen, prima facie, though there is allegation to the effect that the accused brought the minor victim on his motor bike and dropped her near the tuition centre.
6. As far as the quashment sought for on the ground of settlement is concerned, the same is not legally permissible. Therefore, quashment on the ground of settlement is liable to fail.
7. Coming to the prayer for quashment on the ground of merits, the statement of the victim dated 31.12.2022, which led to registration of this crime, would show that the victim was a student of VHSS, Vattiyoorkavu, studying in 9th standard and she maintained a love affair with the accused for three months. While so, when she used to go for tuition, she would reach Nettayam by bus, the accused would take her on his motor bike and drop her near the tuition centre and there they used to chat for ten minutes. The accused had taken the victim to the tuition center for two days and there was chatting between them on those days. On 31.12.2022, when the victim traveled on the motor bike of the accused and reached near the tuition centre, the same was detected by her mother and she was scolded for the same. When the 161 statement given by the victim is gone through, the allegation is more lightened stating that she called the accused and accordingly he brought her to the tuition centre. She also stated that the accused did not take her to any other place and he did not abuse her, in any manner.
8. In view of the rival arguments and the prosecution allegations as espoused, the ingredients to attract offence punishable under Section 11(4) read with 12 of the POCSO Act, required to be addressed. For this purpose, reference to Section 11(4) read with 12 of the POCSO Act, is necessary. The same are as under:
(i) utters any word or makes any sound, or makes any gesture or exhibits any object or part of body with the intention that such word or sound shall be heard, or such gesture or object or part of body shall be seen by the child.
(ii) makes a child exhibit his body or any part of his body so as it is seen by such person or any other person.
(iii) shows any object
The absence of sexual intent in the victim's statements negated the applicability of the alleged offences under the IPC and POCSO Act.
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.
(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 court ruled that mere transportation of a minor without sexual intent does not constitute offences under IPC or PoCSO Act, allowing the quashment of proceedings.
The court established that for offences under the PoCSO Act, evidence of sexual intent in communications is essential to constitute a prima facie case.
Serious offences under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed based on settlements, as they affect public interest and the dignity of victims.
Serious offences under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed based on compromise or victim's affidavit, reaffirming the need for societal protection.
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.
The court established that while serious offences typically cannot be settled privately, the unique circumstances of marriage and children can justify quashing proceedings to protect family integrity....
Serious offences under the POCSO Act cannot be settled; quashment based on settlement is impermissible due to public interest considerations.
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.