Kerala High Court
Xxxxxx vs State Of Kerala on 31 July, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 8062 OF 2022
CRIME NO.92/2022 OF POTHANIKADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
SC NO.306 OF 2022 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
COURT (POCSO), MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.
SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN
SRI.K.M.RAPHY
SHRI.AJAI ALIAS CHALAPPURAM
SHRI.VIVEK RADHAKRISHNAN
SHRI.ARUN C.S.
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
POTHANICAD POLICE STATION, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686671
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 31.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56970
Crl.M.C 8062/2022
2
ORDER
The sole accused in SC No.306 of 2022 on the files of Additional
Sessions Court (Special Court for Trial of Offences relating to Atrocities
and Sexual Violations against Women and Children), Muvattupuzha, has
filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the proceedings
against him in the said case. The offences alleged against him are under
Sections 366 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section
6 r/w Sections 5(l)&5(j)(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, (in short, ‘POCSO Act‘). The prosecution case is that
the petitioner resorted to penetrative sexual assault upon the de facto
complainant at the bedroom of his house on three days in the months of
May, June and July, 2021, as a result of which the de facto complainant,
a minor girl, got impregnated and delivered a male child.
2. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he
has been falsely implicated in this case, and that consequent to the love
affair with the de facto complainant, he had married her. It is further
stated that the petitioner and the de facto complainant are now leading a
peaceful family life with the child born in their wedlock. For the above
2025:KER:56970
Crl.M.C 8062/2022
3
reason, the petitioner seeks to terminate the prosecution proceedings
against him.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the marriage between the petitioner and the de facto complainant
had already been conducted on 07.04.2022, and that they are now
leading a peaceful family life. Annexure A1 certificate of marriage issued
by the Marriage Officer, Pothanicadu, is relied on by the learned counsel
for the petitioner in support of the above contention. Annexure A2 birth
certificate of the child born in the wedlock between the petitioner and
the de facto complainant is also produced to show that the petitioner and
the de facto complainant are leading a family life as husband and wife.
The de facto complainant has also filed an affidavit stating that the
termination of the prosecution proceedings against the petitioner is
highly necessary for preserving the peaceful and happy family life of the
de facto complainant and the petitioner.
5. The learned public prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted
that the de facto complainant had given a statement to the Investigating
2025:KER:56970
Crl.M.C 8062/2022
4
Officer also upon the same terms as that of the affidavit filed before this
Court by her.
6. The issue whether a crime of aggravated penetrative sexual
assault registered against an offender under the provisions of the POCSO
Act could be quashed taking note of the marriage of the victim with the
accused, still remains as a delicate and debatable subject matter among
judicial circles. A learned Single Judge of this Court had the occasion to
deal with two such similar issues in Crl.M.C.Nos.6880/2022 & 7427/2024.
Relying on various judicial precedents of several High Courts as well as
this Court on the point, the learned Single Judge culled out seven
aspects of significance to be looked into in cases of this nature.
Paragraph No.26 of the common order rendered by the learned Single
Judge in Xxxx v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 471] is extracted
hereunder:
“The following aspects assume significance in the
peculiar nature of the cases, where the offence is followed by
the marriage between the perpetrator and the victim:
(1) Unless the criminal proceedings are terminated
by quashing the same, there will be utter chaos,
confusion and even havoc in the life of the victim
who married the accused, and who is leading a
happy life. In other words, the life of the victim, the
2025:KER:56970
Crl.M.C 8062/2022 5
accused and the child, if any, in that relationship will
be ruined. Per contra, If the offence is quashed, it
will bring in harmony, peace and happiness, thus
promoting their family life.
(2) Unless, the Court choose to quash the
proceedings, the trauma/agony of the child/victim
continues, despite a genuine and bonafide
settlement.
(3) Despite and de-hors a bonafide and genuine
settlement culminating in the marriage between the
petitioner/accused and the victim, if the criminal
proceedings are to continue – thereby compelling the
parties to face the trial – the same verge upon abuse
of process.
(4) The ends of justice is in favour of quashment in
such category of cases, since it will be an injustice to
separate a well knit family by the continuance of the
proceedings.
(5) Quashment of the proceedings will result in
rendering total and complete justice to the parties.
(6) When the crucial witness is the victim, who had
married the accused, there exists little chance for her
to speak against her own husband/ accused,
wherefore, the chances of conviction will be too
bleak and remote. In other words, no fruitful
purpose will be served by continuance of the
proceedings.
2025:KER:56970
Crl.M.C 8062/2022
6
(7) Compelling the continuance of a proceedings,
which is otherwise settled genuinely and which
answers the requirements of the interest of justice
will only add to the burden of criminal courts in
India, which is otherwise over burdened.”
7. Going by the above parameters dealt with by the learned
Single Judge, the present case undoubtedly comes within that category
of cases where the proceedings against the petitioner/accused have to
be quashed to meet the ends of justice.
8. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
had the occasion to deal with a similar case in Mahesh Mukund Patel
v. State of U.P. [2025 SCC Online SC 614]. In the said order the
Hon’ble Apex Court found fault with the High Court concerned for
declining to quash the proceedings even after being convinced of the fact
that the victim and the accused are happily married. Of course, it is true
that there is an observation in the said order that as per the documents
on record, the victim was a major at the time when the offence was
committed. But still the principles elucidated by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the aforesaid order for dealing with cases where the person who was
once an assailant, now turned out to be the protector and saviour of the
victim, assume relevance in this context.
2025:KER:56970
Crl.M.C 8062/2022
7
9. As far as the present case is concerned, I am of the view
that the termination of the prosecution proceedings against the petitioner
is highly necessary to maintain the harmonious and peaceful life of the
victim who now remains under the care and protection of the petitioner.
Therefore, the prayer in this petition deserves favourable consideration.
In the result, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings against
the petitioner/accused in SC No.306 of 2022 on the files of Additional
Sessions Court (Special Court for Trial of Offences relating to Atrocities
and Sexual Violations against Women and Children), Muvattupuzha,
which arose out of Crime No.92 of 2022 of Pothanicadu Police Station,
Ernakulam, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
G.GIRISH
JUDGE
IAP