Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 25662
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. GIRISH, J
MAHESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 2740 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SREEJITH S.
For the Respondents: SMT.P.A.MEERA
Crimes involving sexual assault on minors cannot be quashed based on victim's compromise; such offenses are serious and impact society.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354A(1)(i), 376(3), 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 8, 7, 4, 3(a), 6 r/w 5(l), 5(m), 5(n), 12 r/w 11(iii), 11(v) - Allegations of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor by step-father - The court held that the nature of the crime is heinous and cannot be quashed even if a compromise is reached between the victim and the accused. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Delay in lodging complaint - The court acknowledged that trauma and fear often prevent victims from reporting sexual assaults immediately, thus justifying the delay in this case. (Paras 7)
(C) Character of the victim - The court ruled that the past acquittals of other accused do not undermine the credibility of the victim's allegations in this case. (Paras 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of sexually assaulting his step-daughter over a period of two years, and the complaint was filed after the victim reached adulthood.
Findings of Court:
The court found the allegations serious and not subject to compromise, dismissing the petition to quash the proceedings.
Issues: The main issues addressed include the nature of the crime, the validity of a compromise, and the implications of delayed reporting.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that crimes of this nature are serious and cannot be settled privately, reaffirming the need for prosecution regardless of victim's wishes.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of sexual assault on a minor by step-father. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's defense includes claims of misunderstanding and previous acquittals. (Para 3) |
| 3. court finds the nature of the crime serious and non-compoundable. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. delay in reporting explained by victim's trauma and fear. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. previous cases against other accused do not discredit current allegations. (Para 8) |
| 6. court dismisses the petition to quash proceedings. (Para 9) |
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.311/2025 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children), Thiruvananthapuram. He faces criminal prosecution for the commission of offences under Sections 354A (1)(i) , 376(3) , 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , and Sections 8 read with Section 7 , 4 read with Section 3(a) , 6 r/w 5(l) , 5(m) & 5(n) and 12 read with Section 11(iii) and 11(v) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, who is the step-father of the de facto complainant, a minor girl, resorted to outraging her modesty and indulging in aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her from 2017 to 2019, while the victim was at the age range of 12 years to 14 years. It is stated that in the month of March, 2017, at a time when there was nobody in the house, the petitioner kissed the de facto complainant upon her neck and fondled her breasts. In the month of November, 2017, the petitioner is said to have resorted to the same sexual assault after showing obscene video in his mobile phone to the victim. Thereafter, he is alleged to have recorded the naked visuals of the victim’s body. In the month of February, 2019, the petitioner allegedly threatened the victim that he would circulate the above nude visuals of her to her friends, and made her surrender to him for indulging in penetrative sexual assault. The petitioner allegedly continued aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the victim up to the month of May, 2019. According to the victim, she was afraid of complaining about the above nefarious acts of the petitioner due to the fear that he would circulate the visuals of her naked body, and that was the reason why the complaint was lodged after several years, after she attained the age of majority.
3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that a false and baseless case has been foisted against him. It is further contended that the issue has been amicably settled with the victim who has filed an affidavit stating that she preferred the complaint as a result of a misunderstanding. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that there were two other cases against different persons in connection with the commission of sexual assault upon the de facto complainant, and that in both the above cases, the accused were acquitted. Thus, the de facto complainant is portrayed as a lady of loose morales, having the habit of falsely implicating men in sexual offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5. This is a case where the petitioner is alleged to have committed most virulent and reprehensible sexual assault upon a minor girl from her age of 12 years to 14 years, by misusing his capacity as the second husband of the mother of the victim. It is not possible to say that the offence involved is a private issue of the family of the petitioner and the de facto complainant. On the other hand, the crime involved in this case is one of vulgar nature of ravaging a minor girl by subjecting her to unpardonable sexual cruelty. It is not possible to condone the crime involved in this case even if the accused managed to win over the victim and her mother by resorting to threats or sentiments. The law does not give its stamp of approval for the compounding of crimes of this nature. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, time and again,
