POCSO Act: Kerala High Court Restricts Quashing of Child Sexual Offence Cases on Settlement Alone

The news

The Kerala High Court has ruled that criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot ordinarily be quashed solely on the basis of a settlement or compromise between the accused and the victim or the victim’s family, even when the alleged offence is of comparatively lesser gravity. The ruling, delivered on 5 November 2026 by a Division Bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and K V Jayakumar, settles a reference that arose from conflicting decisions by single judges of the same court on whether a compromise could justify ending a POCSO case. The case that triggered the reference involved a 49-year-old madrassa teacher accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old student by touching her breast on 1 July 2018 and on subsequent days.

The survivor’s father filed a complaint on 24 April 2019, and the police registered a case under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act, alleging sexual harassment and sexual assault involving physical contact, including by a person in a position of trust or authority. The accused later sought quashing of the proceedings. The court declined to accept an initial affidavit from the survivor as a ground to terminate the case. After attaining majority, the survivor filed another affidavit stating that the complaint arose from a mistaken impression and that she had no grievance against the accused, but the Division Bench held that a survivor turning 18 during proceedings does not retrospectively change the legal character of the alleged act if the offence’s ingredients were present when she was a child. The bench sent the accused’s petition back to a single judge for a decision on merits, rather than treating the survivor’s affidavit as conclusive.

What led to the reference?

The POCSO Act, enacted in 2012, is a special law designed to protect children from sexual assault, harassment and exploitation. Single judges of the Kerala High Court had given conflicting rulings on whether a compromise between the accused and the victim could be a ground to quash proceedings under the Act. One view allowed such quashing in certain circumstances, while another held that a compromise could not end the proceedings. The Division Bench was asked to settle the legal position.

Why can’t a settlement alone end a POCSO case?

The court held that POCSO offences implicate the larger public interest and cannot be treated as private disputes that a victim or her family may terminate at will through a private arrangement. It said that even an act of sexual assault involving physical contact without penetration may have serious consequences for a child’s dignity, bodily integrity and psychological well-being. The bench also warned that allowing settlement-based quashing could expose vulnerable victims to pressure and inducement to withdraw from prosecution. Relevant factors for a court to consider include the nature of the act, the child’s age, the relationship between the accused and the victim, the circumstances of the offence, and any position of trust or authority occupied by the accused.

What happens next in the teacher’s case?

The Division Bench returned the accused teacher’s quashing petition to a single judge for a decision on merits. The single judge will now assess the case based on the nature of the offence, the legislative policy behind the POCSO Act and the larger public interest, rather than treating the survivor’s affidavit expressing no grievance as conclusive.