The 2021 criminal case filed against a man for the statutory rape and kidnapping of a 17-year-old girl was recently quashed by the Kerala High Court. The court determined that the victim was now blissfully married to the accused man and that the couple had two children [XXX & anr v State of Kerala & anr].
Justice A Badharudeen stated that settlements are typically not considered in rape cases; however, the Court is exempting itself from this principle on humanitarian grounds to prevent the couple’s tranquil family life from being disrupted.
The Court’s July 22 order said, “Settlement of cases including offence of rape and POCSO Act offences is not permissible under law. However, in the instant case, though the 1st accused after maintaining relationship with the minor victim subjected her to sexual molestation and she became pregnant, as of now, the 1st accused married the victim and now, they have been living happily with two children. In such cases, the tough nut stand in the way of settlement shall be crushed with humanitarian consideration as the hammer, so as to ensure the peaceful family living of the parties and most importantly to ensure the well being of the children born to them”.
In 2021, the accused man was arrested in connection with allegations that he abducted the 17-year-old victim and induced her to become pregnant.
He was charged with abduction and rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and with offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
The victim’s mother was also charged with neglecting to report the crime.
In 2024, the two defendants submitted a petition to the High Court to dismiss the criminal case, arguing that the matter had been resolved between the parties.
The victim, who is now an adult, submitted an affidavit to the High Court that verified her marriage to the accused man. The Court was also provided with a copy of their marriage certificate.
Additional endorsement of the settlement referenced by the accused was provided by the victim’s attorney. These assertions were also verified by the Public Prosecutor (for the State).
The accused, the victim, and the State all informed the Court that the couple was blissfully married and had two children.
The Court noted that compromise or settlement are typically prohibited in cases of severe crimes that involve allegations of rape or POCSO offenses.
Court explained, “these are crimes against the body of a woman which is her own temple. These are offences which suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. And reputation, needless to emphasise, is the richest jewel one can conceive of in life”.
The Court underscored that the acceptance of settlements in these types of cases could convey an incorrect message to society. The Court observed that habitual offenders could exploit settlement options to coerce victims into abandoning charges if this were permitted to become the norm.
Nevertheless, the Court continued to note that the victim’s family life could be irreparably disrupted if criminal proceedings were permitted to persist in the current case.
From this standpoint, the Court concluded that the rape case should be dismissed due to humanitarian concerns.
Court said, “there is no necessity to continue criminal proceedings so as to retain them in the hazards of litigation and to collapse their married life and the well being of the children. In view of the matter, in deviation from the general principle, this is a fit case, where quashment is liable to be allowed”.
Advocate P L Mary Treasa represented the accused. The State was represented by Public Prosecutor M P Prasanth.
