The Kerala High Court quashed cases registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code [IPC] against a man which was registered after he refused to marry the complainant.
Looking at the evidence, it appeared that the cases under the POCSO were initiated only because the petitioner refused to the marry the complainant post their engagement, Justice Gopinath P noted. Relying on a High Court decision Vishnu v. State of Kerala, the High Court said this,
Moreover, even going by the First Information Statement of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant/victim, an engagement ceremony had been conducted in connection with the then proposed marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant/victim and the complaint came to be filed only on account of the fact that the petitioner had thereafter withdrawn from the marriage proposal. Annexure-2 will show that the marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant/victim has been solemnized.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he developed an intimacy with the defacto complainant/2nd respondent/victim and sexually abused and engaged in sexual intercourse with her while she was a minor. Though an engagement ceremony was conducted regarding the marriage between them, the petitioner subsequently withdrew from the marriage proposal and committed the offences alleged against him.
This was the prosecutions version.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that he was absolutely innocent in the matter. In November, 2023, the Court had granted him interim bail as well post his arrest. Another key detail that was told to the Court that post his release, the petitioner and the defacto complainant got married. The Bench then opined that continuing proceedings against the petitioner will be prejudicial to the victim as well, before quashing the proceedings.