IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that serious offences under the POCSO Act, particularly sexual assault against minors, cannot be quashed based on victim retraction or compromise, emphasizing public interest in prosecuting such crimes.

ORDER :

(A. BADHARUDEEN, J.) :

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , to quash Annexure 1 FIR, Annexure VII Final Report and all further proceedings thereof in S.C.No.1147/2016 on the files of the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, ‘POCSO Act’ hereinafter), Kozhikode, arose out of Crime No.661/2016 of Nallalam Police Station, Kozhikode. Respondents are State of Kerala and the defacto complainant.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant. Perused the relevant records.

3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 7 r/w Section 8 of the POCSO Act by the accused. The specific allegation is that, when the victim met the doctor at 7.30 p.m on 12.07.2016 for treatment, on the pretext of clinical examination with sexual intent, the accused put his hand inside the churidar of the minor victim and pressed on her both breasts and after lifting the top of the churidar and lowering the panties, he pressed on the vagina of the victim and thereby the accused committed the above offences.

4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a reputed medical practitioner, who is having great service in the Government of Kerala and he had worked as Associate Professor at Medical College, Calicut and other domains. He served as the Vice Principal of Calicut Medical College during 2005-2012 and during 2012 to 2014, he served as the first Principal and Project Officer in the Manjeri Government Medical College. The petitioner's wife also is a doctor. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a person doing private practice/consultation in his own clinic which is attached to his residence. His wife, who is also a Doctor, shares the same consultation room. At about 7.30 p.m on 12.07.2016, the minor victim, who at the relevant time was a Plus one student, came for consultation along with her father (who is a painter by profession), complaining of fever and pain in the abdomen. Their neighbour one Jayasree and her daughter, who is a tenth standard student, were already there for consulting the petitioner. Since there was heavy rush for consultation, the father of the minor victim sent her along with the neighbour Jayasree and her daughter in accordance with their turn and the father waited outside. The petitioner first examined Jayasree's daughter, who had fainted in the class. Then, the petitioner examined the victim, who had complained of fever and pain in her abdomen. She also told the petitioner that she is already on treatment for appendicitis. When the victim complained of fever, the petitioner had to examine her by auscultation (examination by means of using stethoscope) on her chest. This is to rule out for any crepitation and respiratory infection. While so, the victim had again complained of pain in the abdomen and further she also said that she was already in treatment for appendicitis. In view of the history of appendicitis, the petitioner had to examine the abdomen and the surrounding area to elicit pain. This was to rule out acute appendicitis or appendicular mass. While examining so, Jayasree and her daughter, were very much present beside the victim during the clinical examination. It is pertinent to point out that either during the examination or even thereafter, there was no resentment from the patient. After the examination, the petitioner prescribed medicines to the victim including antibiotics and they left the consultation room. In fact, when the minor victim along with Jayasree and her daughter came for consultation, the petitioner was on a belief that the victim and the other girl child were both daughters of Jayasree. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegation of sexual assault at the instance of the peti