1. Petition to quash FIR under POCSO for sexual offences against minor girl – Settlement between parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6499
Alexander Thomas, J
Aboobacker M. A. – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.M.C.No.3440 OF 2020(H)
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Vijaya Bhanu, P. M. Rafiq, M. Revivikrishnan, Ajeesh K. Sasi, V. C. Sarath, Vipin Narayan, Pooja Pankaj, Sruthy N. Bhat, Abel Tom Benny
For the Respondents: P.K. Varghese, Saigi Jacob Palatty
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Vijaya Bhanu, P. M. Rafiq, M. Revivikrishnan, Ajeesh K. Sasi, V. C. Sarath, Vipin Narayan, Pooja Pankaj, Sruthy N. Bhat, Abel Tom Benny
For the Respondents: P.K. Varghese, Saigi Jacob Palatty
The High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, if the parties have settled the dispute and continuing the prosecution would be futile and a waste of judicial time.
Headnote:(A) Quashment of Criminal Proceedings - Inherent Powers of High Court - Exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash prosecution in non-compoundable offences where parties have settled the dispute and continuance of prosecution serves no purpose. (Para 7)
(B) POCSO Act - Nature of Allegations - Where there are no serious allegations of penetrative sexual assault and the victim's family has expressed a willingness to forgive the accused, the court may exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice. (Para 8, 9)
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act can be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the victim's family.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued dispute resolved and parties settled; respondents supported quashment. (Para 5 )
3. Court found genuine settlement; continuance of prosecution would waste court time. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. High Court can quash non-compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC if parties truly settled. (Para 7 )
5. FIR and all proceedings quashed; petitioner to produce order copies for information. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. Can the High Court quash a non-compoundable offence under Section 482 CrPC if parties have settled?
Yes, the High Court can quash prosecution in appropriate cases if parties have really settled the dispute. (Para 7 )
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
===============
Crl.M.C No.3440 of 2020
===============
Dated this the 07th day of December, 2020
ORDER
The prayer in the aforementioned Crl.M.C filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C is as follows :
“................ to allow this Criminal Miscellaneous Case, quash Annexure A F.I.R and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in Crime No.99/2020 of Vadakekkad Police Station, Thrissur District, so as to secure the ends of justice.”
2. Heard Smt.Sruthy N.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State of Kerala and Sri.P.K.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent Nos.2 & 3 (minor victim's father and the victim).
3. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant impugned Annexure-A First Information Report in Crime No.99/2020 of Vadakekkad Police Station, Thrissur, for offences punishable under Secs.7 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the 3rd respondent-minor victim girl aged 9 years on 10.03.2020 at about 10 a.m., in respect of the alleged incident, which happened on 09.03.2020 at about 5.30 p.m. in the evening.
4. The brief of the prosecution case is that when the 3rd respondent-minor victim girl aged 9 years, who was studying in Std.IV, had gone to the shop of the petitioner/accused aged 62 years for purchasing some articles on 09.03.2020 at about 5.30 p.m. in the evening, he had talked to her in sexually coloured words and had touched her cheeks and chest and that the petitioner/accused has misbehaved to her in previous occasions also. It appears that in the course of the investigation, the police have filed an additional report, whereby the offences have been altered to Sec.9 (l) (m) read with Sec.10 of the POCSO Act, as the minor victim girl aged 9 years is admittedly below the age of 12 years and that there are allegations that the accused had done it on more than one occasion.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the entire disputes between the petitioner/accused and respondent Nos.2 & 3 have been resolved and that the allegations are made out of misunderstandings and that respondent No.3 (father of the victim girl) has filed an affidavit dated 20.07.2020, stating that the matter has been settled and that respondent Nos.2 & 3 do not have any objection in quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings, etc.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor was also requested to get instructions and it is submitted on the basis of instructions that the Investigating Officer has conducted an enquiry and has recorded the statements of both the 2nd respondent-father of the victim girl and the 3rd respondent-minor victim girl, wherein it is stated that considering the fact that the petitioner/accused is aged more than 62 years, they are prepared to forgive him and that they do not have any objections in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings.
7. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in Gian Singh v.
