IMPORTANT POINT
The court can quash proceedings under the POCSO Act based on genuine settlements, especially when the accused and victim are married, to prevent injustice and promote family harmony.

ORDER :

Two separate independent criminal cases are sought to be quashed on the strength of settlement between the parties. Since both these cases involve offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, ('POCSO Act' for short) - the quashment of which on the basis of settlement being a debatable proposition - this Court choose to dispose of both matters by virtue of a Common Order, as the parameters for consideration are common.

2. The relevant facts may be summarized thus:

Crl.M.C.No.6880/2022:- Petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.466/2019 of Shanthanpara Police Station, now pending as S.C.No.213/2020 before the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Kattappana. The offences alleged are under Section 376 of the Penal Code and under Section 3(a), read with Section 4 and 5(ii)(j) and (l), read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution would allege that the petitioner/accused, with the necessary animus, had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim, a minor girl, repeatedly during the period from 22.12.2018 till 24.12.2018 and thereafter, at a different house on 11.09.2019, pursuant to which the victim became pregnant, thus committing the offences enumerated above.

Crl.M.C.No.7427/2024:- Petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.63/2020 of Karinkunnam Police Station, Idukki, now pending as S.C.No.212/2020 before the Special Court (POCSO), Idukki. The offences alleged are under Sections 363, 366(A), 370 and 376(2)(n) of the Penal Code and also under Section 4, read with Section 3(a); Sections 5(l) and 5(j)(ii), read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution would allege that the petitioner/accused, with the necessary animus, have enticed the victim girl, aged 17 years, from her lawful guardianship by June 2017 and committed penetrative sexual assault on her during the period from May 2019 to September 2019, repeatedly, with the result, the victim became pregnant. On 09.02.2020, the petitioner/accused contacted the victim on several occasions and kidnapped her by about 3:30 p.m. in his scooter. The prosecution would also allege that the victim gave birth to a baby girl, thus committing the offences enumerated above.

3. A common facet of both these cases is that the respective petitioner/accused have married the victim girl after the registration of the crime, upon the respective minors attaining majority. In Crl.M.C.No.6880/2022, Annexure-VI is the marriage certificate, while it is Annexure-A3 in Crl.M.C.No.7427/2024. In both these cases, the respective petitioners seek quashment on the strength of amicable settlement with the victim girls, as also, their parents. In Crl.M.C.No.6880/2024, Annexure-V is the affidavit sworn to by the defacto complainant/victim, wherein she would swear that she had decided to marry the petitioner upon attaining majority (at the time of swearing the affidavit the marriage had not taken place); that the families of both the petitioner and victim have accepted the relationship; and that the defacto complainant/victim has no objection in quashing all further proceedings in that crime. A similar affidavit is sworn to by the defacto complainant/victim in Crl.M.C.No.7427/2024, produced at Annexure-A6, wherein she would swear that the petitioner/accused is her husband and that their marriage was solemnized on 24.01.2020 at a temple, in accordance with the religious rites. It is also stated that in that wedlock, they have a girl child by name Theertha, then studying at LKG and further, that the deponent/victim is again pregnant. The deponent would also state that she has been sent for B.Sc Nursing course by the petitioner, and he is taking care of the four year old child. According to the victim, the crime was filed on the basis of misunderstanding and that she has no surviving grievance against the petitioner/accused, inasmuch as the subject matter of the Sessions Case concerned is fully settled by and between them.

4. Apart from the affidavits swor