Heinous offences, like those under IPC Section 376 and POCSO, cannot be quashed based on settlement, reflecting the law's stance on serious crimes.

O R D E R

(Dated this the 02nd day of March, 2026)

The petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.

328 of 2016 of Kalpakanchery Police Station now pending before the Fast Track Speicial Court, Thirur as LP No. 14 of 2021 filed this Crl.MC under Section 5 28 BNSS praying for quashing Annexure 3 final report on the ground that the matter has been settled with the defacto complainant. The petitioner is facing trial for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act .

2. The prosecution case is that on 25.01. 2012 at about

11 pm and on several subsequent days, the accused committed penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim aged 15 years and thereby he is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, now the victim became major, that she married another person and leading a happy life along with him and also that now the entire dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant has been settled. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The alleged offence was committed in the year 2016, when the victim was aged 15. It is true that the petitioner has produced Annexure A5 affidavit stating that now the dispute has been settled with the defacto complainant. The allegation is that the petitioner committed penetrative sexual assault on a minor aged 15 in the year 2016. The law is well settled that heinous offences like 376 cannot be quashed even if the matter has been settled between the parties. In the instant case, the offence alleged against the petitioner includes Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, which are serious as well as heinous in nature. In the above circumstances, for the mere reason that the dispute has been settled between the parties, the same cannot be quashed by invoking the inherent power of this Court. Therefore, this Crl.MC is liable to be dismissed.

At this time, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that now the petitioner is employed abroad and because of the coersive steps and look out notice he is not in a position to return to India and surrender before the learned Special Judge. In the above circumstances, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to give a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the Special Judge within a period of one month from today and a further direction to the learned Special Judge that, in case the petitioner surrenders as above and moves the bail application after serving copy to the Public Prosecutor, the same shall be considered on the date of filing of such application.

Sd/-