Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Proceedings in Light of Marital Settlement

 

Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Proceedings in Light of Marital Settlement: A Case Analysis

By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India recently quashed criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and related provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in a case where the accused and the victim are now happily married. The Court emphasized that continuing the prosecution would serve no meaningful purpose and would only cause undue harassment to the parties involved and their children. The decision, delivered by a division bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, underscores the importance of judicial discretion in balancing legal rigor with humanitarian considerations.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) registered on September 18, 2016, under Sections 354A (sexual harassment), 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping or inducing a woman to compel marriage), and 376 (rape) of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The allegations stemmed from an incident involving the accused and the victim, who was initially believed to be a minor at the time of the alleged offence.

However, during the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the victim’s date of birth, as per school records and an ossification test, was July 20, 1998. This indicated that she was over 18 years old at the time of the alleged incident in September 2016, thereby rendering the POCSO Act inapplicable. Furthermore, the accused and the victim had solemnized their marriage on February 5, 2016, as evidenced by a marriage certificate issued by the Registrar of Hindu Marriages in Varanasi. The couple has since been living together and has two children.

Judicial Proceedings and Findings

The victim, in her affidavit, affirmed that she was happily married to the accused and expressed her desire to withdraw the criminal proceedings. Despite this, the Allahabad High Court, in its impugned order, directed the parties to approach the Trial Court for a settlement, overlooking the fact that the Trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to record such a compromise.

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, noted that the High Court had failed to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows for the quashing of proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process or to secure the ends of justice. The apex court observed that the continuation of the prosecution would not serve any constructive purpose and would only inflict unnecessary hardship on the accused, the victim, and their children.

 

Legal Implications and Analysis

This judgment highlights the judiciary’s role in interpreting the law in a manner that aligns with the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. The Court’s decision to quash the FIR and the pending Sessions Trial proceedings underscores the importance of considering the unique circumstances of each case, particularly when the parties have reached an amicable resolution.

The ruling also brings to light the nuanced application of the POCSO Act, which is designed to protect minors from sexual exploitation. In this case, the victim’s age at the time of the alleged offence was a critical factor in determining the applicability of the Act. The Court’s reliance on documentary evidence, including the marriage certificate and school records, demonstrates the significance of corroborative evidence in judicial decision-making.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the criminal proceedings in this case reflects a balanced approach to justice, where legal principles are harmonized with the realities of human relationships. By setting aside the impugned order and quashing the FIR and trial proceedings, the Court has not only alleviated the suffering of the parties involved but has also reinforced the importance of judicial discretion in ensuring that the legal process remains a tool for justice rather than harassment.

This judgment serves as a precedent for similar cases where the continuation of prosecution may no longer serve the interests of justice. It also reiterates the need for courts to exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC judiciously, particularly in cases involving settlements and amicable resolutions.

 

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult qualified legal professionals for specific legal concerns.