Mother Can't Settle POCSO Case Registered Against Father For Sexually Assaulting Minor Daughter: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently observed that the mother of a minor cannot settle or compromise the criminal case initiated against the father for sexually assaulting or sexually harassing their minor daughter. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 437]Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath denied bail to a man, who was arrested for sexually assaulting his minor daughter, and refused to accept that the case has...
The Kerala High Court recently observed that the mother of a minor cannot settle or compromise the criminal case initiated against the father for sexually assaulting or sexually harassing their minor daughter. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 437]
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath denied bail to a man, who was arrested for sexually assaulting his minor daughter, and refused to accept that the case has been compromised.
Referring to Vishnu v. State of Kerala, the Court observed:
“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… Consequently, the mother cannot legally settle or compromise a case against the father for sexual harassment or sexual assault of their minor daughter.”
It added that courts have a duty to safeguard the interests of minor victims even if parents did not do that:
“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. Courts, in the exercise of their parens patriae jurisdiction, bear a bounden duty to safeguard the rights of minor victims of sexual assault, even where parents fail to do so.”
The applicant before the Court was accused of sexually assaulting his 17-year-old daughter by touching her thigh and breast. It is also alleged that he uttered sexually coloured remarks to her. He was accused of the offences punishable under Sections 10, 9(l), 9(n), 12 and 11(i) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
He was arrested and has been in judicial custody since April 17. His first bail application was rejected by the Court. In the present application, it is contended that he is innocent and falsely implicated. It was also submitted that after the dismissal of the first bail plea, the matter has been settled with the victim's mother, who had lodged the criminal complaint. An affidavit was also filed by the mother stating that she does not wish to prosecute the case further.
However, the Court was of the view that this compromise cannot be accepted. It noted that the victim had given statement narrating the repeated sexual exploitation by the father and seeing the seriousness of the offences alleged, the first bail plea was rejected.
Since, prima facie, there was a premeditated criminal act, it would not be a fit case to grant bail, especially since there is no averment that the offence did not occur, it opined.
“The case depicts the tragic plight of a minor girl, aged 17 years, who was repeatedly subjected to sexual exploitation by her own father...It now emerges that the mother of the victim, who had initially lodged the complaint alleging sexual assault, has chosen to settle the matter in utter disregard of the interest and welfare of her daughter – a situation aptly described as the fence itself devouring the crop… it is significant to note that the mother has not contended that the incident did not occur; her case rests solely on the claim of a subsequent settlement,” it added further.
Thus, it dismissed the bail plea.
Case No: BA No. 4130 of 2026
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 437
Counsel for the petitioner: Jerry Mathew