The High Court of Kerala has firmly rejected the notion that private settlement can override public interest in cases of sexual abuse of minors by teachers under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. This judgment reinforces that the state’s duty to protect children supersedes private compromise, even when victims’ families seek closure.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a school Arabic teacher, is accused of sexually abusing a minor female student in 2024. The allegations, as per the FIR, include placing the child on his lap, rubbing his beard on her face and ear, pinching her thigh and armpit, and biting her ear. These acts form the basis of charges under Section 75(1)(i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and multiple provisions of the PoCSO Act, 2012, including Sections 7, 8, 9(c), 9(f), 9(m), 9(p), and 10.
Procedural History
- 2024: FIR registered at Kattakada Police Station under Crime No. 393/2025
- 2025: Petitioner filed four separate criminal miscellaneous petitions (including this one) seeking quashing of proceedings in five similar cases involving minor female students
- January 2026: This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Naya Sanhita (BNSS) came up for admission before the Kerala High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of all proceedings on the ground that the victim’s mother had filed an affidavit affirming settlement and expressing no objection to dropping charges. He submitted Annexure A1, a receipt dated 4.7.2024, as evidence of compromise.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether private settlement between the accused and the victim’s family can justify quashing of criminal proceedings under the PoCSO Act, 2012, particularly when the accused is a person in a position of trust and multiple similar allegations are pending.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the dispute had been amicably resolved, as evidenced by the mother’s affidavit and the receipt of compensation. Reliance was placed on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das and State of Rajasthan v. Ram Singh to contend that courts should encourage settlement in cases involving minors where the victim’s family consents. It was submitted that continued prosecution would cause unnecessary trauma and that the court’s inherent power under Section 528 BNSS permits quashing where justice so demands.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor opposed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner is a repeat offender, with at least three other pending cases involving similar conduct against minor female students. It was emphasized that PoCSO offences are non-compoundable, and the state has an irrevocable duty to prosecute such crimes to protect the dignity and safety of children. The prosecution highlighted the petitioner’s position as a teacher and the breach of public trust inherent in his actions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of PoCSO offences and the legislative intent behind their non-compoundable status. It noted that while settlements may be considered in certain cases under Section 320 CrPC, such provisions do not extend to PoCSO Act offences, which are treated as crimes against society, not merely private wrongs.
"A teacher is expected to be a role model to others and expected to inculcate good values in his students under his control. The parents send their wards to such institutions believing that the teacher will take care of the ward like his/her own children."
The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s repeated conduct - alleged in four other cases - demonstrates a pattern of predatory behavior exploiting institutional authority. The fact that the victim is a minor renders any private compromise legally and morally insufficient to extinguish public prosecution. The Court further held that quashing such proceedings would send a dangerous signal to society that those in positions of authority can evade accountability through financial settlements.
The Court distinguished Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, noting those cases dealt with bail and compoundable offences, not non-compoundable sexual offences against children. The public interest doctrine and the doctrine of institutional trust were invoked to justify refusal to quash.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s application was dismissed. The Court held that settlement between parties cannot override the state’s duty to prosecute PoCSO offences, especially when the accused is a teacher with multiple pending allegations. Proceedings under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 of PoCSO Act and Section 75(1)(i) BNS shall continue.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Settlement Does Not Bar Prosecution in PoCSO Cases
- Practitioners must advise clients that PoCSO offences are non-compoundable regardless of victim’s family consent
- Any attempt to quash proceedings on grounds of settlement will be rejected if the accused holds a position of trust
- Courts will prioritize societal interest over private compromise in child sexual abuse cases
Position of Trust Elevates Accountability
- Teachers, caregivers, and institutional staff accused of sexual abuse face heightened scrutiny
- Repeat allegations trigger judicial presumption of predatory conduct
- Courts will not tolerate abuse of authority, even if no physical penetration is alleged
Quashing Powers Under BNSS Are Limited in Public Interest Cases
- Section 528 BNSS does not empower courts to quash proceedings in cases involving serious crimes against children
- The inherent power must be exercised with restraint where public morality and child safety are at stake
- Legal teams must focus on mitigation during trial, not pre-trial quashing, in PoCSO matters
