Parents Can't Give Consent On Behalf Of Minor Victim To Compromise Sexual Offence: Gauhati High Court Refuses To Quash FIR

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed,

"It is also settled that offences which involve moral turpitude and grave offences like rape, murder etc. even if compromised cannot be quashed in exercise of High Court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as such offences are against the State and cannot be restricted to two individuals or groups."

Facts of the Case:

On 15.10.2016, the respondent no. 2 herein lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Kohima (N) Police Station, alleging that while his minor daughter was on her way home, the petitioner dragged her to an isolated place and attempted to molest and murder. On the basis of the aforesaid, a case was registered under Section 354A (2)/307 of IPC read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act.

Thereafter, during the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested. Subsequently, he was released on bail. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet. When the matter was pending before the trial court, on 22.11.2016, the families of the informant and the petitioner decided to compromise the matter so as to put to an end to the case.

On the basis of such compromise, the petitioner had approached the High Court for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as the FIR dated 15.10.2016. The only ground taken and urged in the present matter for quashing the aforesaid criminal proceeding is the compromise so entered. The respondent no. 2 had entered appearance and filed an affidavit-in-opposition, wherein he had admitted the compromise and the deed of compromise dated 22.11.2016.

Contentions:

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled through compromise. He heavily relied upon the aforesaid affidavit for the same. Further, he argued that it will be a futile exercise to continue with the trial. Accordingly, he prayed for quashing the FIR dated 15.10.2016 as well as charge-sheet and the entire criminal proceeding.

However, the State counsel vehemently opposed such prayer on the ground that such heinous crime cannot be compromised inasmuch as law is well settled in this regard.

Court's Observation:

The Court held that the law is well settled that court can compound cases in exercise of its power under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash criminal proceeding involving non-compoundable offences, considering fact and circumstances of the case more particularly when disputes are amicably settled and the victim is having no objection to such compromise.

However, in the case in hand, the offences are grave in nature involving minor victim. The allegations are under Section 354A(2)/307 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the Court concluded that when the offences are grave in nature and allegation is of an attempt to rape of a minor, such allegation and criminal proceeding cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise entered into between the families of the victim and accused inasmuch when it is a sexual offence involving a minor, the parents cannot give consent on behalf of the minor to compromise such serious offences. (emphasis added)

Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed with a direction to the Trial Court to proceed with the trial forthwith.

Case Title: Mr. Limhathung v. The State of Nagaland

Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 5/2021

Judgment Dated: 24 March 2022

Coram: Justice Arun Dev Choudhury

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. N Mozhui, Mrs. K Kire, Ms. N Rupreo, Mr. P. Mere, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. K Angami, PP, State of Nagaland

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 21