Serious offences under the POCSO Act cannot be compromised or settled; a prima facie case warrants a trial.

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

The sole accused in S.C.No.787/2020 on the files of Special Court for the trial of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (`POCSO Act’ for short), Ernakulam, has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case (`Crl.M.C’ for short) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash Annexure A1 final report in the above case arising out of Crime No.611/2020 of Elamakkara Police Station, Ernakulam City.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records placed along with this Crl.M.C and the case diary produced by the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused with intention to sexually assault the minor girl victim, aged 9 years, so as to satisfy his lust, at about 15.30 hours on 14.10.2020 placed his head on the breast of the minor child and fondled on the chest. The further allegation is that he made attempt to touch on the vagina of the minor child by inserting his hands inside her panties. On the above premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 9 (m) r/w 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (`POCSO Act’ for short) and Sections 354A(1)(i) and 354A(2) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (`IPC’ for short).

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed quashment of the proceedings by arguing that when the bail application of the petitioner was considered by this Court itself, the defacto complainant, who is the father of the victim, appeared through counsel and submitted that the child gave such a statement because of some misunderstanding and accordingly bail was granted to the petitioner. It is also submitted that in tune with the said submission, now the father of the victim filed an affidavit to quash the proceedings on affirming that the matter has been compromised and settled.

5. Apart from that, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a senior citizen, aged 74 years, living along with his son and grandchildren. According to him, on the date of occurrence, the minor child came to the house of the petitioner to play with his elder granddaughter and at that time the petitioner was sitting at the veranda of the house with his younger granddaughter, aged 6 months. Soon the elder granddaughter of the petitioner wanted to take a snap along with the minor child. Accordingly a photo was taken by his elder granddaughter and now the allegations are stemmed from the overt acts in connection with the photographing. Based on Annexure A2 photograph, it is submitted that the petitioner had no intention to sexually molest the minor child even though the minor child complained of sexual molestation to her parents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on hearing the shocking news the petitioner along with his son went to the house of the victim. But unfortunately the petitioner was brutally manhandled by the father of the victim.

6. The defacto complainant, who is the father of the minor child, conceded quashment on the ground of settlement.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed quashment of this case, acting on the affidavit, where the ingredients to attract the offences alleged are made out, prima facie. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed settlement on emphasizing the statement of the victim recorded by the police as well as her 164 statement to contend that the offences are, prima facie, made out warranting trial.

8. In this matter, crime was registered on the basis of the first information statement given by the father of the minor child. As per