‘Mother can’t settle case’: Kerala High Court denies bail to man accused of daughter’s rape

“The mother cannot legally settle or compromise a case against the father for sexual harassment or sexual assault of their minor daughter. 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 said on August 3.

The court pointed out that it now emerges that the mother of the survivor, 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”.

“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 order said.

Mother seeks to settle POCSO case

The prosecution’s case was that the 50-year-old petitioner, father of the minor girl aged 17 years, had sexually assaulted his daughter on multiple occasions spanning three months. He was booked under multiple Sections of the POCSO Act.

Justice Kauser Edappagath said the offences involving sexual assault of a minor are not compoundable.

He was then arrested and remanded to judicial custody and remained in custody thereafter. His first bail application was dismissed. He then filed a second regular bail application before the high court. In the second bail plea, the accused claimed that he was innocent and falsely implicated. The survivor’s mother filed an affidavit stating that the matter had been settled and that she did not wish to pursue the case.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Jerry Mathew submitted that the dispute had been settled between him and the survivor’s mother, who had expressed no objection to his release on bail.

His counsel argued that there were no materials on record connecting him with the alleged offences and, therefore, he was entitled to bail.

The Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea. The prosecution argued that the alleged incidents were part of the accused’s intentional criminal acts. It contended that, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the accused should not be released on bail at that stage.

Parents not permitted to compromise minor victim: Order

The court noted that the survivor had given a statement describing the alleged sexual assault. It also pointed out that the accused’s first bail application had already been rejected considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the relationship between the accused and the survivor.

The court expressed concern that the survivor’s mother, who had initially lodged the complaint, later sought to settle the matter and give consent for bail. It said this was done “in utter disregard of the interest and welfare” of the minor daughter.

Importantly, the court observed that the mother did not say that the alleged incident had not occurred; her position was only that the matter had subsequently been settled.

Holding that the offences involving sexual assault of a minor are not compoundable, the court said, “The law does not permit parents or guardians of a minor survivor 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.” On these grounds, the Court rejected the settlement and dismissed the second bail application.