XX XX Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two separate independent criminal cases are sought to be quashed on the strength of settlement between the parties. Since both these cases involve offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, ('POCSO Act' for short) - the quashment of which on the basis of settlement being a debatable proposition - this Court choose to dispose of both matters by virtue of a Common Order, as the parameters for consideration are common.

(2.) The relevant facts may be summarized thus:

(3.) A common facet of both these cases is that the respective petitioner/accused have married the victim girl after the registration of the crime, upon the respective minors attaining majority. In Crl.M.C.No.6880/2022, Annexure-VI is the marriage certificate, while it is Annexure-A3 in Crl.M.C.No.7427/2024. In both these cases, the respective petitioners seek quashment on the strength of amicable settlement with the victim girls, as also, their parents. In Crl.M.C.No.6880/2024, Annexure-V is the affidavit sworn to by the defacto complainant/victim, wherein she would swear that she had decided to marry the petitioner upon attaining majority (at the time of swearing the affidavit the marriage had not taken place); that the families of both the petitioner and victim have accepted the relationship; and that the defacto complainant/victim has no objection in quashing all further proceedings in that crime. A similar affidavit is sworn to by the defacto complainant/victim in Crl.M.C.No.7427/2024, produced at Annexure-A6, wherein she would swear that the petitioner/accused is her husband and that their marriage was solemnized on 24/1/2020 at a temple, in accordance with the religious rites. It is also stated that in that wedlock, they have a girl child by name Theertha, then studying at LKG and further, that the deponent/victim is again pregnant. The deponent would also state that she has been sent for B.Sc Nursing course by the petitioner, and he is taking care of the four year old child. According to the victim, the crime was filed on the basis of misunderstanding and that she has no surviving grievance against the petitioner/accused, inasmuch as the subject matter of the Sessions Case concerned is fully settled by and between them.