Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3403 of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 12912 of 2022)
Decided On : 07-11-2024
(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 7 and 8 read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3( 1)(b) & 3(2) (vii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 354A, 342, 509 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Sexual assault on girl child – Amicable settlement between parties – Criminal proceedings quashed by High Court – Quashment of proceeding initiated under POCSO Act abruptly by invoking power under Section 482, Cr. PC without permitting it to mature into a trial, except on extremely compelling reasons ex facie malafidely initiated or initiated solely to settle score, would go against very intention of Legislature behind enactment – Commission of such offences cannot be taken lightly as offences of private nature and such offences are bound to be taken as offences against society – FIR registered against third respondent for serious offences, was quashed by High Court invoking power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. solely based on the fact that compromise was arrived at between third and fourth respondents – Allegations contained in subject FIR was not at all even adverted to, before quashing the same – Before exercising power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of crime – In cases of this nature, fact that in view of compromise entered into between parties, chance of conviction is remote and bleak also cannot be a ground to abruptly terminate investigation, by quashing FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, by invoking power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. – Impugned order of High Court quashed and set aside. (Paras 12, 22, 25 and 33)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal by Special Leave – Locus Standi – Supreme Court could entertain appeal against Judgment of acquittal at instance of private parties also – Article 136 of Constitution of India neither confers on anyone right to invoke jurisdiction of Supreme Court nor inhibits anyone from invoking Court’s jurisdiction and where a Judgment of acquittal by High Court led to miscarriage of justice, Supreme Court would not refrain from doing its duty and abstain from interfering on the ground that a private party and not State has invoked Court’s jurisdiction. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
FIR was registered under Sections 354A, 342, 509 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3( 1)(b) & 3(2) (vii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As per impugned order High Court, despite opposition by Public Prosecutor, allowed petition and quashed subject FIR and all further proceedings in pursuance thereof.
Findings of Court:
FIR No.6/2022, investigation and criminal proceedings pursuant thereto subject to the nature of the report to be filed under Section 173(2), Cr. P.C., be proceeded with against the accused, in accordance with law.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
1. The renowned American poet H. W. Longfellow penned to the effect that a torn jacket might soon be mended, but a bruised heart of a child would be beyond reviviscence. Certainly, it contains the gospel truth as relates a child subjected to sexual assault, be it aggravated or penetrative; or any kind of sexual abuse or exploitation. It is more so, in the case of a female child as it may hound her and hack her family life.
On pedagogy Marcus Tullins Cicero (106-43 BC) in ‘De Officiis’ (on duties) said: “What nobler employment, or more valuable to the State, than that of the man who instructs the rising generation?”
2. May be a jinx on pedagogy unfortunate, unconscionable and unpardonable things happen, though not often-times. The following factual narration will unravel the raison d'etre for the above prelude: -
FIR No.6/2022 dated 08.01.2022 was registered at Sardar Gangapur City Police Station, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan at the instance of the 4th respondent, the father of the victim involved in the case, against the 3rd respondent herein under Sections 354A, 342, 509 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the POCSO Act’) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3( 1)(b) & 3(2) (vii) of the Schedule Cast and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SC/ST Act’). The allegations thereunder are to the effect that on 06.01.2022 when the victim child, then a student of Class XI in Higher Secondary School was alone in the classroom, the 3rd respondent, who is a teacher, came there. After gazing through the window to ensure that nobody is there near to the classroom, he reached behind her and started patting her cheeks and soon put his hand inside bodice and rubbed her breast. In anguish and anger, she got up and ran away. The accused followed to stop her and hurled abuses with ugly words like ‘dedh Chamar’ etc. Thereupon, she sat down near the gate and beseeched the teachers for help, but it was of no avail. They persuaded her to be tight- lipped about the incident. Though, the Principal came to know about it, he only took her signature on a blank paper. Meanwhile, one teacher came to the residence of the 4th respondent and took his wife to the school telling that her daughter was not feeling well. On reaching there his wife found the daughter in a deadly terrified and numbed state and she could say nothing to the mother. But, on reaching home, she divulged the incident, to the mother viz., the wife of the 4th respondent and she, in turn, informed him on his mobile phone as he was away in another village for employment purpose. On the next day, the 4th respondent came back home and the victim narrated the whole incident to him and then, he lodged the aforesaid FIR.
3. Obviously, the subject FIR was filed on 08.01.2022. The third respondent herein compromised the matter with the fourth respondent, who is the father of the victim, on 31.01.2022 and thereupon, moved S.B (Crl.) Misc. Petition No.1348/2022 before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the ‘Cr.P.C.’), seeking quashment of the said FIR and all further proceedings thereon. As per the impugned order dated 04.02.2022 the High Court, despite the opposition by the learned public prosecutor, allowed the said petition and quashed the subject FIR and all further proceedings in pursuance thereof. The impugned order would reveal that based on the fact that the 3rd respondent has settled the dispute amicably with the 4th respondent and relying on the decision of this Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the High Court quashed the FIR and all further proceedings therefrom. The High Court held thus:-
“…The offence alleged in this matter is non compoundable, however Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punj
(1) In heinous offences settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all.(2) Appeal by Special Leave – Locus Standi – Supreme Court could entertain appeal against Judgment of ....
The court may quash FIRs in cases involving serious offences if the parties have resolved their dispute amicably and the likelihood of conviction is minimal.
The court ruled that serious offences under the POCSO Act, particularly sexual assault against minors, cannot be quashed based on victim retraction or compromise, emphasizing public interest in prose....
Serious offences like section 376 IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of settlement between the parties.
Point of Law : No doubt, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, for quashing of FIR, Court is also required to take into consideration interest of society at large, but in the present case,....
Point of Law : POCSO Act – Compromise – Quash of criminal proceedings.
High Court quashed FIR under Section 69 BNS on compromise as offence (sexual intercourse by deceitful promise of marriage, not rape) not heinous; voluntary victim settlement secures justice, prevents....
Heinous and serious offences cannot be quashed based on a compromise between the parties, as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
