The High Court ruled that serious offences like rape cannot be compromised or quashed, ensuring public interest in prosecuting such crimes.

ORDER :

G.GIRISH, J.

The petitioner is the second accused in S.C No.151/2025 on the files of Additional Sessions Court-II, Pathanamthitta. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 366 , 376, 354, 354A, 354B, 385, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC r/w Section 34 I.P.C.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, along with the first accused, outraged the modesty of the de facto complainant/second respondent and committed rape upon her on multiple occasions during the months of May and June, 2021. It is alleged that, at the first instance, the petitioner and the first accused took the de facto complainant in a car and made her unconscious by serving juice mixed with some stupefying drugs and thereafter resorted to penetrative sexual assault upon her inside the car. The petitioner allegedly recorded the nude visuals of the de facto complainant and threatened her that unless she succumbed to their demands, she would be done away with. It is further alleged that the petitioner committed repeated acts of rape on the de facto complainant after three days from the date of first incident, by threatening that her nude visuals would be shown to her husband and children.

3. The case has been registered by Thiruvalla Police on 27.11.2021 on the basis of the first information statement given by the de facto complainant. After the completion of the investigation, the Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla laid the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla.

4. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he is totally innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further stated that the issue has been amicably settled with the de facto complainant who had filed an affidavit stating that she has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. The prosecution records would reveal that the de facto complainant had been ravaged by the petitioner and the first accused on multiple occasions by subjecting her to death threat and also emotional blackmailing. On the first occasion, the petitioner and the first accused are alleged to have served juice mixed with intoxicating drugs to the de facto complainant and made her unconscious for perpetrating the gruesome sexual assault. At that time, the petitioner allegedly recorded the nude visuals of the de facto complainant, which he made use of on subsequent occasions to threaten her by saying that it would be shown to her husband and children, to make her surrender to him for further sexual assaults. Thus, the case on hand is not one, of the victim extending consent for sexual intercourse as a result of misconception of facts. On the other hand, this is a typical case where a housewife is alleged to have been ravaged on multiple occasions by subjecting her to criminal intimidation and emotional blackmailing. In such cases, there is absolutely no scope for quashing the proceedings on the basis of the compromise between the parties.

7. In the celebrated decision of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in unequivocal terms that there is absolutely no scope for any compromise in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity etc. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment laying down the law in this regard is extracted hereunder:

“xxxx No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and thre