Blog

Also Read: Understanding the POCSO Act, 2012: Safeguarding Children’s Rights and Dignity

Understanding the Nature of POCSO Offences

The POCSO Act was enacted with the objective of protecting children below 18 years of age from sexual offences such as sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography.

Key features of the law include:

• Gender-neutral protection: Both boys and girls are protected under the law.

• Stringent punishment: Offences range from a few years to life imprisonment and even death in aggravated cases.

• Special courts: Cases are tried in Special POCSO Courts to ensure speedy and sensitive trials.

• Child-friendly procedures: The Act lays down safeguards to prevent re-victimization during investigation and trial.

Since these offences affect the dignity, bodily integrity, and safety of children, they are treated as crimes against the State, not just against an individual.

This is why once a case is registered, it moves beyond the control of the complainant or the victim’s family.

Also Read: Latest Amendments to the POCSO Act: Key Changes and Their Impact

Why a POCSO Case Cannot Be Withdrawn

1. Non-Compoundable Nature of the Offence

All offences under the POCSO Act are non-compoundable, meaning:

1. The complainant cannot withdraw the complaint after registration.

2. Compromise between the victim and accused has no legal effect on the criminal proceedings.

3. The State takes over the prosecution process.

Unlike compoundable offences such as defamation or simple hurt, which may be settled between parties, offences like sexual assault or rape cannot be compromised privately.

2. Public Interest and Protection of Children

POCSO is designed to protect vulnerable minors. If families were allowed to withdraw cases at will:

1. Victims could be pressured or manipulated to retract complaints.

2. It would defeat the purpose of deterrence.

3. It could encourage out-of-court settlements in serious crimes.

For these reasons, the prosecution must continue regardless of personal circumstances or changed emotions.

3. Case is Between the State and the Accused

Once an FIR is registered under the POCSO Act:

1. The State becomes the prosecuting party.

2. The victim becomes a witness, not the owner of the case.

3. Only the court can decide whether the proceedings will continue or be quashed.

This principle ensures that justice is served objectively, not based on personal decisions.

4. Supreme Court’s Strict Stand

The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that serious offences like sexual assault under POCSO cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.

These are crimes against society, and withdrawal would set a dangerous precedent.
Courts have emphasised that the dignity of a child cannot be bargained away.

How a POCSO Case Can Be Quashed

Although withdrawal is not permitted, the High Court can quash a case using its inherent powers under BNSS in exceptional cases.

1. Petition under BNSS

Under Section 482 of the earlier CrPC (now BNSS), the High Court can:

1. Quash an FIR or criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process or

2. Secure the ends of justice.

The accused or both parties may approach the High Court through a petition for quashing.

2. Genuine Compromise or Changed Circumstances

Courts may consider quashing when:

1. The relationship between the victim and accused was consensual (especially in teenage relationships).

2. The age difference is marginal (e.g., 17 and 19 years).

3. The parties have since married and are living peacefully.

4. Continuing the case would cause more harm than good.

Important: Even in such cases, the court verifies facts very strictly to ensure the victim was not coerced into compromise.

3. Judicial Discretion of the High Court

The High Court exercises great caution before quashing:

1. It considers the nature of the offence, the victim’s age, and the evidence.

2. It ensures justice is not compromised in the name of settlement.

3. It checks for voluntariness, not forced compromise.

Quashing is not a right, it is purely at the discretion of the court.

Landmark Judgments on Quashing of POCSO Cases

1. Ranjeet Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh (2023)

The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed a POCSO case after finding:

1. The victim and accused were in a consensual relationship.

2. They later married and lived peacefully.

3. Continuing the prosecution would harm their marital life.

The court exercised its powers under Section 482 CrPC (now BNSS) but stressed that this was an exceptional situation.

2. Manoj Sharma vs State (2008)

While not a POCSO case, the Supreme Court of India in this case clarified:

1. The High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in the interest of justice.

2. This power must be used sparingly.

3. Serious offences cannot be quashed lightly.

This principle guides courts when dealing with POCSO quashing petitions.

3. Kerala High Court (2022)

The Kerala High Court quashed a POCSO case involving allegations against a man who later married the victim:

1. Both parties lived together peacefully.

2. The victim did not wish to pursue the case.

3. The court concluded that prosecution would serve no purpose.

This case illustrates how changed circumstances can influence court decisions.

4. Allahabad High Court Observations

The Allahabad High Court has consistently stated:

1. Rape and POCSO cases cannot be quashed solely based on compromise.

2. Such offences are against the State and society, not individuals.

3. Leniency may undermine child protection laws.

What Happens If the Case Is Not Quashed

If the High Court refuses to quash the case:

1. The trial continues in the Special POCSO Court.

2. The complainant cannot withdraw the FIR.

3. The victim may choose to turn hostile, but this has consequences:

   1. The court can still rely on:

      1. Statements under Section 164 BNSS

      2. Medical evidence

      3. Forensic reports

      4. Witness testimony

   2. Turning hostile may lead to perjury charges in some circumstances.

This is why legal experts recommend following the proper legal route of quashing, rather than informal withdrawal attempts.

Difference Between Withdrawal and Quashing

Why the Law Is So Strict in Child Protection Cases

1. Children are among the most vulnerable members of society.

2. They often lack the power to resist pressure or make informed decisions.

3. Families may be manipulated or threatened to withdraw cases.

4. The law ensures that justice remains independent of family pressure.

That’s why offences under POCSO are treated as serious public wrongs, not private disputes.

Rights of the Victim and Accused

Rights of the Victim

1. To receive protection and a fair trial.

2. To be heard and represented in court.

3. To receive support services, including medical and psychological care.

4. To be informed about case progress.

Rights of the Accused

1. To approach the High Court for quashing if there are genuine reasons.

2. To receive a fair and impartial trial.

3. To be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

4. To have legal representation.

This balance ensures both justice for the victim and fairness to the accused.

Practical Steps If You Want to Explore Quashing

1. Consult a qualified lawyer experienced in POCSO and criminal law.

2. File a quashing petition in the relevant High Court.

3. Provide documentary proof of changed circumstances (e.g., marriage certificate, joint affidavits).

4. Both parties may be called for verification of consent.

5. The court will analyze the evidence and decide.

6. If satisfied, the court may pass an order quashing the case.

Note: Every case is unique. What works in one situation may not work in another.

Key Legal Provisions to Know

• Section 6 to 14 of POCSO Act – Define different offences and penalties.

• Section 19 of POCSO Act – Mandatory reporting of offences.

• BNSS (earlier CrPC) Section 482 – High Court’s inherent power to quash cases.

• Section 164 BNSS – Recording of victim’s statement.

• Indian Evidence Act – Admissibility of evidence in sexual offence cases.

These provisions together form the backbone of the legal process in POCSO matters.

Role of the High Court in Quashing

When deciding on quashing a POCSO case, the High Court considers:

1. The seriousness of the allegation.

2. The age of the victim at the time of offence.

3. Whether the victim’s consent was genuine or legally valid (Note: Consent of a minor has no legal validity).

4. Whether continuing the trial would serve any purpose.

5. Whether the compromise is voluntary and without coercion.

The court prioritises the welfare of the victim above everything else.

Why “Turning Hostile” Is Not a Safe Option

Some victims or families, unable to withdraw the case, try to weaken it by turning hostile during trial.

But this can be legally risky:

1. Earlier statements, medical evidence, and witness testimonies may still support conviction.

2. Judges can use Section 164 BNSS statements as substantive evidence.

3. It may expose the witness to perjury proceedings.

Courts have repeatedly discouraged this practice, urging parties to follow the proper legal route.

Victim Protection Measures under POCSO

The POCSO Act provides several safeguards for victims:

1. In-camera trials (closed courtrooms).

2. Prohibition of media disclosure of identity.

3. Appointment of support persons for child witnesses.

4. Speedy trial procedures.

5. Psychological support and rehabilitation.

These measures ensure that justice is child-centric and sensitive.

Conclusion

A POCSO case cannot be withdrawn once registered because it involves serious offences against children and society at large.

However, in exceptional situations, the High Court of India may quash the case using its inherent powers under BNSS, if:

1. The relationship was consensual with marginal age difference,

2. The victim and accused have settled the matter genuinely, and

3. Continuing the case serves no purpose.

Withdrawal is not legally allowed, and quashing is purely at the court’s discretion.

Before taking any step, it is advisable to consult an experienced criminal lawyer who can guide the parties through the proper legal process.

Key Takeaway:

1. POCSO offences are non-compoundable.

2. Withdrawal is not legally possible.

3. Quashing is only allowed in exceptional cases through the High Court.

4. Always seek professional legal assistance for such sensitive matters.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is based on current laws and judicial interpretations as of 2025. For personalized legal advice, please consult a qualified lawyer or legal expert.

Also Read: Cheque Bounce Cases in India: Know Your Legal Rights, Defenses, and Latest Updates

What is Section 138 of the NI Act?

Before diving into the judgment, let’s understand what Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 says.

Section 138 deals with dishonour of cheques for insufficiency of funds. If someone issues a cheque that is later dishonoured by the bank due to lack of funds or because it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid, the drawer of the cheque can face criminal liability.

To constitute an offence under Section 138, the following must occur:

• The cheque must be issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

• It must be returned unpaid by the bank.

• The payee must give a written notice within 30 days.

• The drawer fails to make the payment within 15 days from receipt of the notice.

So, a legally enforceable debt is the cornerstone of a Section 138 case.

Also Read: How to Recover Money You Lent to Someone

What is Section 269SS of the Income-Tax Act?

Section 269SS of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 prohibits a person from accepting a loan or deposit of ₹20,000 or more in cash. Such transactions must be made only through:

• Account payee cheque,

• Account payee bank draft, or

• Use of electronic clearing systems (NEFT/RTGS/IMPS).

If this provision is violated, Section 271D of the same Act provides for a penalty equal to the amount of the loan or deposit taken.

The intent behind this provision is to eliminate cash-based large transactions, thereby reducing tax evasion and money laundering.

Background of the Kerala High Court Case

The case was titled P.C. Hari vs. Shine Varghese. The facts are as follows:

• The complainant, Shine Varghese, alleged that the accused, P.C. Hari, had borrowed ₹9,00,000 in cash and issued a cheque to repay it.

• The cheque was dishonoured due to "insufficient funds."

• The complainant sent a legal notice, and upon non-payment, filed a criminal case under Section 138 of the NI Act.

• Both the Magistrate Court and Sessions Court found the accused guilty.

• Aggrieved, the accused moved the Kerala High Court in a criminal revision petition.

Also Read: Safe Friendly Loans in India: Everything You Need to Know About the Law

Arguments by the Petitioner (Accused)

The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate D. Kishore, raised some compelling points:

1. Violation of Section 269SS: The alleged cash loan of ₹9,00,000 was a clear violation of Section 269SS of the Income-Tax Act.

2. Illegality of Transaction: Since the transaction was illegal under tax law, it cannot be considered a legally enforceable debt under the NI Act.

3. Burden of Proof: The accused had challenged the complainant's financial capacity and intent from the beginning.

4. No Income Tax Paid: The complainant admitted to not reporting this large cash transaction for income tax purposes, undermining the legality and credibility of the debt.

Also Read: Property Documents for Home Loan in India: An In-Depth Analysis

Arguments by the Respondent (Complainant)

Advocate Manu Ramachandran, appearing for the complainant, defended the case by arguing:

1. Presumption under Section 139 NI Act: The law presumes that a cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt unless the contrary is proved.

2. Penalty Does Not Nullify Debt: A violation of Section 269SS only attracts a penalty, but it does not render the transaction void or illegal.

3. Borrower Cannot Take Advantage: The borrower (accused) cannot take benefit of an illegality (cash loan) that he himself participated in.

4. Reliance on Bombay HC Judgment: He cited the judgment of Krishna P Morajkar v. Joe Ferrao, which held that violations of tax laws do not affect the enforceability of the debt under NI Act.

Legal Issues Before the Court

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan of the Kerala High Court framed a crucial legal question:

“Can a criminal court enforce a debt arising out of a cash transaction that violates Section 269SS of the Income-Tax Act?”

In simpler terms: If a person gives a loan above ₹20,000 in cash (which is prohibited), and the borrower gives a cheque which then bounces, can the lender prosecute the borrower under Section 138 of the NI Act?

Court’s Observations: Upholding Public Policy and Digital India

Justice Kunhikrishnan delivered an insightful judgment, observing the following:

1. Digital India and Cash Transactions

The judge emphasized that the Union Government is promoting digital transactions and reducing cash-based dealings.

“A court of law cannot turn its face and legalise cash transactions when the Government of India aims for complete digital transactions.”

2. Rebutting Section 139 NI Act Presumption

While Section 139 creates a presumption in favour of the holder of a cheque, this is rebuttable. If the accused can raise a probable defence, the presumption can fall.

Here, the accused:

• Challenged the financial capacity of the complainant.

• Pointed to the admitted violation of Section 269SS.

• Highlighted that the complainant did not pay income tax or provide any valid explanation for giving ₹9 lakh in cash.

Thus, the accused rebutted the presumption under Section 139 by a preponderance of probabilities.

3. Illegality Cannot Be Legalised

The court respectfully disagreed with the Bombay High Court’s view in the Prakash Madhukarrao Desai case, stating:

“Legalising such transactions would convert black money into white money through criminal courts.”

The court compared this to the ‘Shylock’ approach—a reference to the greedy moneylender from Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice—suggesting that collecting penalties does not justify the original illegal transaction.

4. Need for a Valid Explanation

If a person gives a cash loan above ₹20,000 in violation of the Income-Tax Act, the court said it could only be treated as legally enforceable if the lender gives a reasonable and valid explanation.

For instance:

• Emergency medical needs

• Lack of banking facilities in remote areas

• Documentary proof of urgency

In this case, no such justification was provided.

Also Read: SARFAESI Act, 2002 Explained: Working, Provisions, Objectives, and Applicability

Final Judgment: Conviction Set Aside

Based on its analysis, the Kerala High Court:

1. Allowed the criminal revision petition filed by P.C. Hari.

2. Set aside the conviction and one-year sentence imposed by the lower courts.

3. Ordered that any amount deposited by the petitioner during the proceedings should be refunded.

However, the judgment clarified that the ruling would apply prospectively and not to cases where this specific legal issue was not raised earlier.

What This Means for Cheque Bounce Cases on Cash Loans

This ruling has far-reaching implications:

Cash Loans Over ₹20,000 Not Automatically Legally Enforceable

Unless a valid reason is shown, a cheque issued for such a loan cannot result in successful prosecution under Section 138.

Burden of Proof on Accused

The accused must raise the defence that the transaction violated Section 269SS. If not raised, courts can presume legality.

Boost for Digital Transactions

The judgment aligns with the government’s push for digital economy and discourages large unaccounted cash deals.

Income Tax Compliance

Lenders who advance large cash loans may face tax penalties and also fail to recover their money legally through criminal prosecution.

Important Supreme Court Precedents Referenced

1. Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010)

Held that the presumption under Section 139 includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt, but this is rebuttable.

2. Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008)

Held that mere issuance of a cheque does not by itself prove a legally enforceable debt.

However, Rangappa’s decision (by a larger bench) overruled Krishna Janardhan Bhat in parts, stating that Section 139 creates a strong presumption that must be disproved by the accused. 

Conclusion: A Wake-Up Call for Cash Lenders

The Kerala High Court’s judgment is a stern reminder that legal recourse requires legal conduct. Giving large loans in cash may feel convenient, but it violates tax law, and worse, you may lose the right to recover it through criminal proceedings.

With this ruling, courts are making it clear: Illegal transactions cannot form the basis of legal enforcement.

If you're engaging in financial transactions, make sure they are:

1. Digitally documented,

2. Within legal limits,

3. And tax compliant.

Need Legal Advice on Cheque Bounce or Loan Disputes?

At LegalKart, you can consult experienced lawyers online and get clarity on your legal situation. Whether it's cheque dishonour, income tax violations, or loan recovery—our legal experts are just a call away.

In a landmark judgment, the Madras High Court has clarified an important aspect of property law related to the cancellation of gift deeds under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWPSC Act). Justice N. Anand Venkatesh has held that a gift deed can only be cancelled by the original donor if there was an explicit condition in the deed requiring the donee (usually the children) to take care of the donor (parents).

This ruling not only upholds the principles of ownership and legal autonomy but also clarifies that one parent (mother or father) cannot cancel a gift deed executed solely by the other. This decision provides much-needed clarity in disputes involving aged parents and children, particularly those concerning maintenance and emotional neglect.

Understanding the Background: The Case of Karuppan v. RDO Kallakurichi

The case arose when a man named Karuppan filed a writ petition challenging the decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) of Kallakurichi. The RDO had cancelled a gift deed that was originally executed in Karuppan’s favor by his father in 1997. The cancellation request had come from Karuppan’s mother, who alleged that he had failed to take care of her after his father's death.

The gift deed, however, did not mention any condition requiring Karuppan to maintain either parent. Justice Venkatesh ruled that the RDO had acted beyond its authority and quashed the cancellation.

People Also Read: Gift Deed: All you should know.

Key Issues Addressed by the Madras High Court

1. Who Has the Right to Cancel a Gift Deed under MWPSC Act?

The Court interpreted Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The section states:

“Where any senior citizen has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to do so, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion.”

Justice Venkatesh emphasized that only the transferor (i.e., the person who made the gift) has the right to seek cancellation, provided:

1. There is a specific condition in the gift deed obligating the transferee to maintain the transferor.

2. The transferee fails to fulfill this obligation.

Hence, a third party, including a spouse of the transferor, cannot seek cancellation unless they are joint donors.

2. No Implied Obligation to Maintain

The Court rejected the interpretation made by a previous Division Bench of the Madras High Court, which had ruled that even if the gift deed did not explicitly contain a clause regarding maintenance, such a condition could be implied.

Justice Venkatesh refuted this view, stating:

“It is well settled that courts cannot rewrite a statutory provision when the words used by the legislature are plain and unambiguous.”

Therefore, unless a maintenance condition is clearly mentioned in the gift deed, the MWPSC Act cannot be invoked to cancel it.

People Also Read: Rates of Stamp Duty on Gift deed across Some Prominent Cities Of India

What is a Gift Deed?

A gift deed is a legal document that allows a person (donor) to voluntarily transfer ownership of movable or immovable property to another person (donee) without monetary consideration. Under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a gift deed must be:

1. Signed by the donor

2. Accepted by the donee

3. Registered under the Registration Act, 1908

Once executed and registered, the gift deed becomes legally binding and generally irrevocable unless a clause provides otherwise.

People Also Read: Gift Deed In India An Overview

Applicability of Maintenance Laws to Gift Deeds

The MWPSC Act, 2007 was introduced to safeguard the interests of senior citizens. Section 23 of the Act allows a senior citizen to revoke a gift deed if the transferee fails to fulfill the maintenance obligations. However, this power is not absolute.

Court’s Clarification:

1. Only the donor (senior citizen) can seek cancellation.

2. The gift deed must explicitly mention the maintenance clause.

3. Revenue authorities, like the RDO, cannot entertain cancellation requests from anyone other than the donor.

People Also Read: Madras High Court: Parents Can Revoke Gift Deeds to Children Who Neglect Them​

Other High Courts' Views

The Madras High Court is not alone in this interpretation. Courts across other Indian states have taken a consistent view in favor of requiring explicit conditions in gift deeds for invoking Section 23:

1. Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Courts

Held that a gift deed without a specific maintenance clause cannot be cancelled under the MWPSC Act.

2. Karnataka High Court

Ruled that only the donor, and not the legal heirs or surviving spouse, has the locus standi to approach the authorities under Section 23.

3. Calcutta High Court

Reaffirmed that implied obligations cannot override the explicit language of a registered gift deed.

People Also Read: High Court Empowers Elderly: Parents Can Revoke Gift Deeds If Neglected by Children

Supreme Court’s Stand: What Does It Say?

In Urmila Devi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of protecting the autonomy of property owners. However, it did not endorse the view that an implied clause of maintenance could suffice under Section 23.

Justice Venkatesh pointed out that:

“This court has carefully gone through the Supreme Court’s decision… and is unable to find a single sentence or word which supports the theory of ‘implied condition’ propounded by the Division Bench…”

Thus, the Supreme Court supports explicit conditions as a prerequisite for invoking cancellation under the Act.

Legal Position After the Judgment

Following this judgment, the legal position in Tamil Nadu—and possibly across India due to the strong persuasive value of the reasoning—is as follows:

1. Only the original donor can file for cancellation under Section 23 of the MWPSC Act.

2. A clear condition in the gift deed is mandatory to invoke this clause.

3. The mother cannot cancel a gift deed executed by the father unless she is a co-donor.

4. Authorities like the RDO cannot act on complaints from non-donors.

5. No implied obligation of maintenance can be read into a gift deed.

People Also Read: Wills vs. Gift Deeds: Navigating Your Estate Planning Options

Real-Life Implications of This Judgment

This ruling provides much-needed clarity for families and legal practitioners. Here’s how:

For Senior Citizens

1. Senior citizens must include a clear clause in gift or settlement deeds regarding the duty of children to maintain them.

2. They cannot rely on verbal promises or assumptions.

For Children

1. Children receiving property through gift deeds must honor written conditions, if any.

2. If no conditions are mentioned, their legal obligation may arise separately under the general provisions of the MWPSC Act, but not for cancellation of the deed.

For Legal Practitioners

1. Ensure that clients include or exclude maintenance clauses as per their intention.

2. Advice should be provided on the irrevocable nature of unconditional gift deeds.

For Revenue Authorities

1. Authorities like RDOs must not act on cancellation requests that do not originate from the donor.

2. All cancellation actions must be legally reviewed before being implemented.

People Also Read: Know Various Aspects About The Gift Deed and Stamp Duty

Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s ruling, delivered by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, affirms the legal principle that property ownership and gift deeds are governed by clear statutory boundaries. By disallowing a mother from cancelling a gift deed made by her deceased husband, the Court has upheld the legal sanctity of a valid and unconditional gift.

This judgment is a cautionary tale for both senior citizens and their children: document intentions clearly, seek legal advice, and understand that emotions do not override explicit legal provisions.