IMPORTANT POINT
Serious offences under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed based on compromise or victim's affidavit, reaffirming the need for societal protection.

ORDER :

(A. Badharudeen, J.)

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the relief to quash Annexure-1 FIR, final report thereof and further proceedings in S.C.No.3/712023 on the files of Fast Track Special Court, Perumbavoor, against the petitioner.

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 records.

3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 450, 376(2)(n), 354, 354A(1)(i), 354D(1)(i), 354D(1)(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short), Section 4 r/w 3, 6(1) r/w 5(l), 8 r/w 7, 10 r/w 9(l), 12 r/w 11(iv), 15 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (`POCSO Act’ for short) and Section 66E of Information Technology Act (`IT Act’ for short).

4. The prosecution case is that the victim, who was aged 17 years, while studying for B.Sc Chemistry, the accused made acquaintance with her through, one of her friends during her schools days. Thereafter the accused used to accompany her while she was going to school and used to talk to her. Further the accused promised to marry the victim. During the period of COVID 19 pandemic, in order to attend online classes, the parents of the victim purchased and gave a mobile phone to the victim. Then the accused started to call her and sent messages through WhatsApp. When parents of the victim detected the same, the accused stopped calling and sending messages to her. Later the accused called the defacto complainant directly and thereafter the accused started to reach the house of the victim in the absence of her parents. On 14.02.2021 when her parents went for job, the accused reached her house at 10.30 a.m with an ice cream for her and they had talk between them for a long time. Thereafter, he compelled the victim to have sexual intercourse with him, despite her protest. Then on the promise of marriage, he forcefully subjected the victim to sexual intercourse ignoring her resistance and he left her home at 11.45 a.m. He continued the same at 10.30 a.m on 22.04.2021 and continued the same thereafter on subsequent dates. According to the victim, the accused used condom while they were having coitus. This is the base on which prosecution alleges commission of the above offences.

5. While seeking quashment of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner zealously argued that the allegations are false and none of the offence made out, prima facie against the petitioner. That apart, it is argued that the victim filed an affidavit stating that the matter has been settled. Therefore, the prayer for quashment is liable to be allowed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of Madras High Court reported in [2021 ICO 2134], Vijayalakshmi & Ors. v. State & Ors., where Madras High Court allowed quashment of the proceedings after observing in paragraphs 112 and 18 as under:

“12. As rightly recognized by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in Sabari’s Case (cited supra), incidences where teenagers and young adults fall victim to offences under the POCSO Act being slapped against them without understanding the implication of the severity of the enactment is an issue that brings much concern to the conscience of this Court. A reading of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the POCSO Act would show that the Act was brought into force to protect children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography, pursuant to Article 15 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, a large array of cases filed under the POCSO Act seems to be those arising on the basis of complaints registered by the families of adolescents and teenagers who are involved in romantic relationships with each other. The scheme of the Act clearly shows that it did not intend to bring within its scope or ambit, cases