Madrassa Ustad’s POCSO Case: Settlement Alone Cannot End Prosecution, Kerala HC Says, Even For Lesser-Gravity Offences

The accused, an Ustad at a madrassa, was alleged to have repeatedly sexually assaulted a 17-year-old student by touching her breast.

A crime was registered under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC and Sections 7, 8, 9(l), 9(f) and 10 of the POCSO Act

After attaining majority, the victim filed an affidavit stating that she had no grievance against the accused and did not object to the proceedings being quashed.

On noticing conflicting Single Judge decisions concerning quashing POCSO proceedings on settlement, a learned Single Judge referred the issue to a Division Bench.

The Court considered Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and its corresponding provision, Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserve the High Court’s inherent power to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process; that power is distinct from compounding under Section 320 CrPC, but does not permit quashing merely because parties have settled.

Applying Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, the Court held that the nature and gravity of the offence and its societal impact weigh against settlement-based quashing of serious offences.

It also relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal and Shimbhu v. State of Haryana for the principle that sexual offences cannot be treated as matters for private compromise

The protective purpose of the POCSO Act requires particular caution where the alleged victim was a child.

The Court reasoned that POCSO offences implicate the public interest in protecting children and cannot be converted into private disputes terminable at the victim’s or family’s will.

The victim’s attaining majority does not alter the legal character of alleged conduct committed when she was a child; nor does the classification of an offence as comparatively less grave make it compoundable or privately settleable.

A settlement or affidavit may also reflect pressure, dependence or inducement, requiring the Court to assess the case independently.

The exceptional circumstances in Ayyub Malik and Harmeet Singh—including an established marriage, cohabitation and a child—did not apply to the present facts.

However, the Court clarified that settlement does not foreclose quashing where an independent examination shows that the offence’s ingredients are absent, the allegations are inherently improbable, or the proceedings are frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process.

The inherent jurisdiction remains available in an appropriate case on independent merits, within the governing legal parameters.

The reference was answered accordingly, and the matter was directed back to the learned Single Judge for consideration of the petition on its merits.