Kerala High Court Denies Compromise in POCSO Case Against Father

Kerala High Court Rules Against Settling POCSO Cases by Parental Compromise

The Kerala High Court has delivered a significant ruling, asserting that cases filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot be dismissed on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the victim’s parent. This decision came in the case Shiju v. State of Kerala & Ors., where the accused, a father, was charged with sexually assaulting his own minor daughter.

Justice Kauser Edappagath presided over the case and stressed that any settlement between a parent and the accused aimed at halting criminal proceedings does not receive legal endorsement. The Court emphasized that such compromises cannot supersede the State’s responsibility to pursue justice in cases of crimes against children.

“The mother cannot legally settle or compromise a case against the father for sexual harassment or sexual assault of their minor daughter. Any compromise or out-of-court settlement effected by the parents of a minor victim with the object of stifling criminal prosecution cannot receive the sanction of law, nor can such a settlement override the State’s duty to prosecute offences against children. Courts, in their role as parens patriae, have a duty to safeguard the rights of minor victims of sexual assault, even when their parents fail to do so,” the Court stated.

The ruling was issued in response to a bail application filed by the accused, who had been in custody since April 17. He faced charges under Sections 10, 9(l), 9(n), 12, and 11(i) of the POCSO Act, accused of making sexually colored remarks and inappropriate contact with his 17-year-old daughter. The High Court had earlier denied his initial bail application, prompting this subsequent appeal.

During the proceedings, the accused claimed he was falsely implicated and argued that no evidence linked him to the alleged crime. He also pointed out that the matter had been settled with the child’s mother, who reportedly had no objection to his release on bail.

However, the Court deemed the allegations as indicative of a severe and deliberate criminal act. “The accusation against the applicant is grave and prima facie discloses a premeditated criminal act. In her statement, the victim has narrated how she was mercilessly subjected to sexual assault by the applicant,” the Court observed.

The Court criticized the mother’s decision to settle, noting it was against her daughter’s welfare. “It now emerges that the mother, who initially lodged the complaint, has chosen to settle the matter in utter disregard of her daughter’s interest and welfare—a situation aptly described as the fence itself devouring the crop,” the Court remarked.

Recognizing that sexual offences are non-compoundable, the Court refused to grant bail, dismissing the application. “The law does not permit parents or guardians of a minor victim to compromise, withdraw, or express no objection to the continuation of criminal proceedings or to the grant of bail in relation to an offence of incestuous sexual assault. Hence, the compromise cannot be accepted,” concluded the Court.