Legal principle established: heinous crimes like rape cannot be quashed due to amicable settlement.

O R D E R

(Dated this the 27th day of February, 2026)

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C No.860 of 2025 of Fast Track Special Court, arising out of Crime No.112 of 2024 of North Paravur Police Station. They filed this petition under Section 528 BNSS praying for quashing all further proceedings against them. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 294 (b), 506, 509, 354-A, 354, 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 376 of IPC and Sections 8 , 7, 4, 5p, 51, 5n, 5m, 3(d), 3(b) and 19 r/w Section 2 of PoCSO Act.

2. The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused who is the stepfather of the victim, aged 9 years, committed penetrative sexual assault upon the de facto complainant and also that the 2^nd accused, who is the mother of the child, failed to report the same to the police and thereby, they are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, now the entire dispute between the petitioners and the de facto complainant has been settled. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioners.

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

5. The offences alleged against the 1st petitioner include Section 376 IPC and various provisions of the PoCSO Act. The law is well settled that heinous offences like rape cannot be quashed, even though the parties amicably settle the dispute among themselves. In the instant case, the allegation is that the 1^st petitioner committed penetrative sexual assault upon the de facto complainant aged 9 years.

6. In the above circumstance, the prayer for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

7. At this state, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1^st petitioner is aged 62 years and suffering from various ailments including problems to kidney and heart. He has produced Annexures A3 and A4 medical records in that respect. Therefore, he prayed for giving a direction to the learned Sessions Judge to exempt the personal appearance of the 1^st petitioner before the trial Court.

8. In the light of the above submission, there will be a direction to the learned Sessions Judge, that in case the 1^st petitioner moves an application for exemption, the same shall be considered favorably.

In the result, this Crl. M.C is allowed.

Sd/-