Sexual Assault Under POCSO Can't Be Quashed Based On 'Compromise', Offence Is Heinous & Not Of Private Nature : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court today set aside the Rajasthan High Court's decision which quashed the 'sexual assault' complaint against a teacher (accused of rubbing the victim's breast). The High Court had quashed the matter based on a 'compromise' between the victim's father and teacher."We are at a loss to understand how the High Court arrived at the conclusion that in the case on hand a dispute to...
The Supreme Court today set aside the Rajasthan High Court's decision which quashed the 'sexual assault' complaint against a teacher (accused of rubbing the victim's breast). The High Court had quashed the matter based on a 'compromise' between the victim's father and teacher.
"We are at a loss to understand how the High Court arrived at the conclusion that in the case on hand a dispute to be resolved exists between the parties and further that to maintain harmony the FIR and all further proceedings thereto should be quashed," the Supreme Court observed.
"When an incident of the aforesaid nature and gravity allegedly occurred in a higher secondary school, that too from a teacher, it cannot be simply described as an offence which is purely private in nature and have no serious impact on the society," the Court added.
The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar observed that matters related to sexual assault cannot be treated as private matters eligible for compromise-based quashing. The Court emphasized the societal impact of such crimes and mandated that proceedings continue in the interest of justice.
“Obviously, rubbing the breast of a child would constitute an offence of 'sexual assault' under Section 7 of POCSO Act, punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years and may extend to five years and also fine. They would reveal that the commission of such offences against the children should be viewed as heinous and serious. Needless to say, that commission of such offences cannot be taken lightly as offences of private nature and in fact, such offences are bound to be taken as offences against the society.”, the Court observed.
Reference was made to the decision in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688 which held that an offence against the society cannot be compromised.
The Court also quoted with approval the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sunil Raikwar v. State and Another which held that a POCSO Act offence cannot be "permitted to be settled."
"In view of the very object and purpose of enacting the POCSO Act, we find no reason to disagree with the conclusions in paragraph 12 (of the Delhi HC judgment) extracted above in the given case," the Supreme Court stated.
The Court also rejected the respondent's argument that the third person/appellant had no locus standi to challenge the quashing of FIR as they were not part of the criminal proceedings. The Court said that the offence of sexual assault, being grave and impacting society, cannot be categorized as a private dispute disentitling the appellant's locus to challenge FIR quashing.
“In view of the nature of the offences alleged against the third respondent, one can only say that if they are proved they could be treated only as offences against the society and at any rate, it cannot be said that prosecuting an offender against whom such allegations are made is not in the interest of the society. In fact, it would only be in the interest of the society. In that view of the matter, when by quashing the FIR by invoking the power under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the accused was relieved of the liability to face the trial coupled with the aforesaid circumstances and the position of law qua locus standi of third party to maintain a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, as revealed from the decisions referred above, we have no hesitation to hold that the challenge based on the appellants' locus standi got no merit at all.”, the court observed.
While quashing the FIR, the High Court referred to the Case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) to observe that when the dispute between the parties is private not having much impact on society then the High Court should not hesitate to quash the FIR.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Ravikumar observed that the High Court wrongly applied the dictum of Gian Kaur, as the Court, in that case, observed that the High Court is bestowed with the duty to examine whether the compromise entered between the parties could be acted upon or not in the interest of justice. However, in the present case, the High Court failed to bestow proper consideration in that regard.
Background
The Court heard a plea filed by the third party/appellant to the criminal proceedings who challenged the High Court's decision contending that heinous crimes, especially those involving minors and sexual offenses, cannot be treated as private matters eligible for compromise-based quashing.
The allegation against the teacher was that he rubbed the breasts of the minor child in nobody's presence in the classroom. The victim was threatened to shut her mouth when she tried to narrate the incident to other teachers. Anyhow, the FIR was lodged against the teacher under IPC, including the POCSO Act and SC/ST Act provisions. However, a compromise was reached between the teacher and the victim's family, leading to the quashing of the FIR by the Rajasthan High Court.
Aggrieved by the quashing of the FIR, the appellant-ordinary village men approached the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's order and directing that criminal proceedings against the accused continue. Emphasizing that POCSO Act cases involve serious public interest, the Court held that such matters should not be dismissed solely based on a compromise between parties.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chetan Bairwa, Adv. Mr. Vikas Jain, AOR Ms. Shrawani Verma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR (R-1, R-2) Mr. Ashutosh Shekhar Paarcha, Adv. Ms. Neha Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Singhal, Adv. Ms. Ashima Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR (R-3) Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR (R-4) Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajat Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Disha Bhandari, Adv. Mrs. Anjali Doshi, Adv. Mr. R Basant - Amicus Curiae, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aviral Saxena, AOR Mr. Manu Krishnan, Adv. Mr. R. H. A. Sikander, AOR (Intervener) Mr. Jatin Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Sanawar, Adv. Mr. Harshit Gahlot, Adv.
Case Title: Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 3403 of 2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 865