Quashing Proceedings Upon Settlement In Heinous Crimes Like Murder & Rape Lacks Legal Sanction, Sends Wrong Signal To Community: Kerala High Court

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that even though the Court has the power to quash proceedings even in non-compoundable offences invoking its inherent powers upon settlement between parties, such powers should be exercised carefully.

The Court cautioned that in cases involving serious offences that impact society, the Court must refrain from invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to dismiss proceedings based on compromises between the parties. The Court said:

“Any kind of liberal approach or thought of mediation in this regard is thoroughly and completely sans legal permissibility. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society.

The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences….Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community, but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a “settlement” through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that “let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided,” it added.

The petitioner was accused of allegedly committing an offence under the POCSO Act and has approached the High Court to quash the FIR and Final Report against him.

The prosecution allegation was that the accused, who was the dance teacher of the minor boy from the scheduled caste community subjected him to carnal intercourse and oral sex on various occasions. The prosecution has thus alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 377 of the IPC, Sections 3(a)(d) r/w Section 4(2), 5(l)(p) r/w Section 6, 7 r/w Section 8, 9(l)(p) r/w Section 10 under the POCSO Act, SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act.

The Counsel for the accused argued that entire allegations were false and that the matter had been settled between the parties and affidavits were filed supporting the settlement.

The Public Prosecutor submitted that the case cannot be settled when offences involved the POCSO Act based on affidavits filed by the victim who has attained majority and the victim's mother.

Relying upon Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another (2014), the Court stated that it was the duty of the State to punish the offender even when there was a settlement.

Relying upon a catena of Apex Court decisions, the Court stated that the settlement between the offender and the victim could have no legal sanction when offences were serious such as rape, murder, dacoity or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Court further stated that compromise cannot be made when offences like rape or attempt to rape were committed. The Court added that settling such offences violates the dignity of women and is without legal sanction.

The Court said, “These are crimes against the body of a woman which is her own temple. These are offences which suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. And reputation, needless to emphasise, is the richest jewel one can conceive of in life. No one would allow it to be extinguished. When a human frame is defiled, the "purest treasure", is lost. Dignity of a woman is a part of her non- perishable and immortal self and no one should ever think of painting it in clay. There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most. It is sacrosanct.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and stated that sexual assault against a minor cannot be quashed merely on settlement.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate P.Anoop (Mulavana)

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 377

Case Title: Ivin v State of Kerala

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 2676 OF 2024

Click here to read/download Judgment