Karnataka High Court sets aside POCSO conviction after victim and mother settle with accused

The appellant, Manu, appealed his conviction by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Mysuru, for offences under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The trial court had sentenced him to three years’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 for the POCSO offence.

During the appeal, the appellant, the victim—then aged 19—and the victim’s mother jointly sought permission to settle the dispute. They stated that they had resolved their differences and did not wish to pursue the matter; affidavits were filed asserting that the settlement was voluntary and free of coercion.

Whether the High Court could give effect to the parties’ voluntary settlement and set aside the appellant’s convictions for offences under Section 354-D IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

Whether, in the circumstances, accepting the settlement and acquitting the appellant would undermine public interest or the administration of criminal justice.

Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 governs the compounding of offences, while Section 528 preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.

The Court relied on Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, in considering whether a settlement may justify quashing criminal proceedings or setting aside a conviction where the nature and gravity of the offence, the accused’s conduct, and the public interest permit it.

The judgment does not set out a detailed statutory analysis of the compounding provisions or the limits of compromise in relation to POCSO offences.

The Court accepted the parties’ affidavits and their submission that the settlement was voluntary and free from coercion.

It considered the nature of the allegations, the appellant’s conduct before and after the incident, the parties’ wish to end the dispute, and their shared locality. The Court concluded that the circumstances did not indicate mental depravity or an offence so serious that setting aside the conviction would override public interest; it also considered that acceptance of the settlement would promote peace and would not adversely affect the administration of justice. Relying on Ramgopal, it therefore allowed the application.

It also directed the trial court to refund any fine amount deposited by the appellant.