Kerala High Court: In a second application for regular bail under Section 483, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with offences punishable under Sections 10, 9(l), 9(n), 12 and 11(i), Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, a Single Judge Bench of Kauser Edappagath, J. held that a parent or guardian cannot legally compromise or settle proceedings concerning the alleged sexual assault of a minor. The Court further held that such a settlement cannot override the State’s duty to prosecute offences against children.
Dismissing the accused’s second bail application, the Court observed that the allegations against the accused, the father of a 17-year-old girl, were grave and prima facie disclosed a premeditated criminal act. The Court further held that the mother’s subsequent settlement with the accused and her statement that she had no objection to his release on bail could not be accepted, particularly when she had not denied the alleged incident. Emphasising its parens patriae duty to safeguard the rights and welfare of minor victims, the Court refused to release the accused on bail.
Background
The prosecution case was that the accused, father of the minor girl aged 17 years, with intent to commit sexual assault, on 10 April 2026 at about 1230 hours, touched the thighs of the girl. Further, in February and March 2026, at about 1.00 a.m., the accused touched the breast of the victim, uttered sexually coloured remarks, and thereby committed the alleged offences. The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 17 April 2026 and since then he has been in custody.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that the allegations against the accused were grave and prima facie indicated a premeditated criminal act. Referring to the victim’s statement, the Court noted the serious nature of the alleged assault. It also observed that the accused’s first bail plea had been rejected considering the gravity and nature of the offence and the relationship between the accused and the victim. The Court further criticised the subsequent settlement initiated by the victim’s mother, who had initially lodged the complaint, observing that it disregarded the interest and welfare of the minor victim, aptly described as a case of “the fence itself devouring the crop”.
The Court noted that, in the affidavit filed by the victim’s mother, she stated that the matter had been settled and that she did not wish to pursue the prosecution further. The affidavit also stated that the victim had no objection to the accused being granted regular bail. However, the Court emphasised that the mother had not denied the occurrence of the alleged incident; her position was based solely on the claim of a subsequent settlement.
The Court reiterated that the offences involving sexual assault of a minor are not compoundable. The law does not permit parents or guardians of a minor victim to compromise, withdraw, or express no objection to the continuation of criminal proceedings or to the grant of bail in relation to an offence of incestuous sexual assault.
The Court held that the victim’s mother could not legally compromise or settle the case against the father for alleged sexual harassment or sexual assault of their minor daughter. It observed that any compromise or out-of-court settlement intended to discontinue criminal proceedings against an accused in such cases cannot receive legal sanction or override the State’s duty to prosecute offences against children.
“Any compromise or out-of-court settlement effected by the parents of a minor victim with the object of stifling criminal prosecution cannot receive the sanction of law, nor can such a settlement override the State’s duty to prosecute offences against children.”
The Court further emphasised that, while exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, it has a duty to protect the rights and welfare of minor victims of sexual assault, even where the parents fail to do so. Accordingly, the alleged compromise could not be accepted, and the Court dismissed the bail application, refusing to release the accused on bail.
[Shiju v. State of Kerala, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 9067, decided on 3-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Jerry Mathew
For Respondent: Aneeda Beegum, Sr. PP