KOCHI: In an attempt to curb sexual offences against children, the Kerala High Court on Friday held that any move to settle sexual abuse cases should be discouraged. “A sexual abuse case is not a matter that can be compounded,” the court observed.
Justice B Kemal Pasha passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by K Noushad of Kollam, the accused in the case related to the sexual harassment of his 13-year-old daughter, seeking to quash the First Information Report registered by the Eravipuram police against him.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he had committed a severe sexual assault on his own daughter. He used to make frequent sexual overtures towards her, and had repeatedly fondled her body and kissed her. On July 21, the petitioner tried to molest her, which she resisted. However, the petitioner repeated the offence, which the girl ultimately reported to her mother. The police registered cases under Section-354 (Assault or Criminal Force to Woman with Intent to Outrage Her Modesty) of the IPC, and various sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
When the case came up for hearing, the petitioner submitted that the issue was settled amicably between the parties. His wife, the mother of the victim, has filed an affidavit stating that ‘no such incident had taken place’, and that her husband had behaved towards their daughter as her father. She further submitted that the complaint was filed before the police due to some misunderstanding, and that her husband had parental affection towards the child.
The court flayed the move by the mother to save her husband, and observed, “It means that the mother is still paving the way for the accused to continue to molest his daughter. This is not a matter which can be compounded. At any rate, the mother of the girl cannot condone such acts done towards the minor girl.”
“This is an instance wherein the protector turned out to be a predator. It seems that the mother has ultimately chosen to pay heed to her husband in order to have a continued matrimonial life at the expense of her own daughter,” the court observed.