1. Sexual assault of a minor — FIR under POCSO Act, IPC, and SC/ST Act — High Court quashed proceedings based on compromise — Challenge by third parties. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1000
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
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikas Jain, AOR Ms. Shrawani, Adv. Mr. Hardik Jayal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. B.s. Rajesh Agrajit, Adv. Mr. Divyank Panwar, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Rana, Adv. Ms. Priya Nagar, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajat Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Disha Bhandari, Adv. Mrs. Anjali Doshi, Adv. Mr. R. H. A. Sikander, AOR Mr. Jatin Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Sanawar, Adv. Mr. Harshit Gahlot, Adv. Mr. Kshitij Singh, Adv. Ms. Nujhat Naseem, Adv. Ms. Sadiya Sultan, Adv. Mr. R Basant - Amicus Curiae, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aviral Saxena, AOR Mr. Manu Krishnan, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikas Jain, AOR Ms. Shrawani, Adv. Mr. Hardik Jayal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. B.s. Rajesh Agrajit, Adv. Mr. Divyank Panwar, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Rana, Adv. Ms. Priya Nagar, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajat Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Disha Bhandari, Adv. Mrs. Anjali Doshi, Adv. Mr. R. H. A. Sikander, AOR Mr. Jatin Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Sanawar, Adv. Mr. Harshit Gahlot, Adv. Mr. Kshitij Singh, Adv. Ms. Nujhat Naseem, Adv. Ms. Sadiya Sultan, Adv. Mr. R Basant - Amicus Curiae, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aviral Saxena, AOR Mr. Manu Krishnan, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 acquittal at instance of private parties also.
Headnote:
(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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Locus standi of third parties to challenge quashment of FIR — Maintainability of quashing serious offences against society based on compromise between accused and victim's guardian. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 )
3. Article 136 confers plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice — POCSO offences are crimes against society, not private disputes, and cannot be trivialized. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 30 , 32 )
4. Serious offences against society, especially under the POCSO Act, cannot be quashed via compromise; third parties may invoke Article 136 to challenge such quashments. (Para 22 , 24 , 33 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order quashing the FIR set aside — Investigation and criminal proceedings restored. (Para 33 )
6. Can a third party to criminal proceedings challenge an order quashing an FIR under Article 136 of the Constitution?
Yes. Article 136 is a plenary power vested in the Supreme Court to prevent miscarriage of justice. It is not circumscribed by who invokes it, allowing public-spirited citizens to challenge quashments of serious offences against society where the State or victim fails to act. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 22 )
7. Can the High Court quash proceedings under the POCSO Act based on a compromise between the accused and the victim's guardian?
No. Offences under the POCSO Act are heinous crimes against society, not private disputes. Such proceedings cannot be quashed solely on the basis of a compromise, as it defeats the Act's purpose of protecting children and ensuring deterrence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 30 , 32 , 33 )
8. When can the High Court exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR based on a settlement?
Quashment is permissible for offences that are predominantly civil, mercantile, or matrimonial in nature. However, it cannot be applied to heinous offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, or offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act, regardless of a settlement. (Para 24 , 32 )
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 Pu
