The seriousness of allegations under IPC and POCSO Act precludes quashing proceedings based on settlement.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 2268 of

2023 of the Thrissur Town East Police Station, which is now pending as S.C.No.517/2024 on the files of Fast Track Special Court (Pocso II) Thrissur. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 3 76, 323 & 506 of IPC and Sections 4 , 3(a), 7 r/w 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [for brevity, ‘the POCSO Act’].

2. The prosecution case is that the accused, with the intention of satisfying his sexual desire, on 17.01.2023, after promising to drop the defacto complainant and her brother at their house from a shooting location at Cheemeni, instead took them to a lodge in Thrissur and at about 3.10 a.m. on 18.01.2023, committed penetrative sexual assault upon CW1 after tying her hands and legs with a cot and thereafter intimidated her, threatening to do away with her in case she disclosed the incident to anyone, and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged.

3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the entire evidence in the case was already recorded by the trial Court and both sides were already heard and the case now stands posted for pronouncing the judgment. According to the learned Counsel, now the victim became major and she got married with another person and also that the entire disputes have been amicably settled and, therefore, he prays for quashing the entire proceedings.

4. The learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that the entire disputes between the parties have been amicably settled and he also prays for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On a perusal of the First Information Statement as well as the Section 164 statement under the Code of Criminal Procedure given by the victim, it is prima facie clear that the offences alleged against the petitioner are made out. The learned counsel also fairly conceded that, at the time of her examination before the trial Court, the victim supported the prosecution case. Since the offences alleged against the petitioner are serious and heinous in nature, merely on the ground that he has settled the dispute with the victim, the case against him cannot be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 B.N.S.S. Moreover, in this case, the entire evidence has already been recorded and the matter now stands posted for pronouncement of judgment.

Therefore, I find no merit in this Crl.M.C., and the same is accordingly dismissed.