-
by sayum
05 August 2026 3:07 PM
“Dignity of a Woman Is Part of Her Non-Perishable and Immortal Self… Courts Must Not Permit Compromise in Cases of Sexual Assault on Minors” – Kerala High Court delivered a strong and principled judgment refusing to quash proceedings against three accused charged with aggravated sexual assault, forced child marriage, coerced miscarriage, and cyber exploitation of a 17-year-old girl.
Justice G. Girish, relying on consistent constitutional and criminal jurisprudence, held that serious offences under the IPC, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Child Marriage Act, and the IT Act are matters of public concern and cannot be quashed even if the victim submits an affidavit stating no grievance.
“This is a typical case where the bar contained under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act has been thrown to the winds. It is not possible to water down the gravity of the crime involved merely because the accused managed to win over the victim and her parents.” – Para 5
The petitioners — arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in S.C. No. 709/2020 before the Additional Sessions Court (POCSO), Koyilandy — filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash all proceedings on the basis of a compromise with the victim, who filed an affidavit stating no interest in continuing prosecution.
The prosecution’s case reveals that:
The first accused committed penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl (aged 17) on 31 January 2016, at his residence.
He allegedly recorded nude images of the victim and used them to blackmail her parents into conducting a Nikah ceremony (13 February 2016) and later a marriage (27 April 2017) — both while she was still a minor.
The girl was allegedly subjected to repeated sexual assaults after marriage, which ultimately led to a pregnancy.
A miscarriage was then caused with the help of co-accused.
The charges invoked include offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 313, 498A, 506 IPC, Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(l), 6, 11(v), 12 of the POCSO Act, Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act.
“Compromise Cannot Override the Law in Heinous Offences” – Court Rejects Petitioners’ Claims
The accused claimed the relationship was consensual and cited Muslim Personal Law, asserting that the girl had attained puberty and therefore the marriage was valid. They further relied on an affidavit by the victim, disavowing any grievance and asserting her unwillingness to proceed with the prosecution.
The Court roundly rejected these arguments: “The first incident of rape was followed by threats of releasing nude photos, leading to forced marriage. These acts are not trivial. Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC may apply to sexual relations within marriage, but not to offences under the POCSO Act.” – Para 5
“The affidavit of the victim expressing no grievance is irrelevant. The law on quashing in such cases is settled — public interest and the dignity of the victim take precedence.” – Para 12
“These Offences Are Against Society – Not Just Against an Individual” – Reliance on Settled Judicial Precedent
“High Courts cannot use their jurisdiction to end prosecutions in serious sexual offences where prima facie material indicates commission of crime.” – Para 10
“Courts Must Guard Against Settlements Secured by Pressure or Threat” – On the Irrelevance of Victim’s Retraction
The Court underscored that settlements in such cases are often achieved through manipulation, coercion, or inducement, and are therefore unreliable indicators of justice or truth.
“The present compromise cannot form the basis to quash prosecution. This is not a private matter — the allegations indicate grave offences involving coercion and abuse.” – Para 11
In refusing to give effect to the victim's affidavit, the Court observed that it would be legally and morally impermissible to allow justice to be privatized or bartered away in such grave offences.
Justice Must Not Be Softened in Cases of Sexual Abuse Against Children
In a detailed and categorical judgment, the Kerala High Court reaffirmed the principle that sexual violence against minors is a crime against society, and no matter how reconciliatory the victim may appear, such proceedings must not be quashed.
“The dignity of a woman is part of her non-perishable and immortal self… There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour, which matters the most.” – State of M.P. v. Madanlal, quoted at Para 8
The Court dismissed the petition, ensuring that the criminal trial will proceed against the accused for grave statutory offences involving child sexual abuse, forced miscarriage, and unauthorised dissemination of sexual images.
Date of Decision: 22 July 2025
