Sexual Crimes Can't Be Settled On Compromise But 'Peaceful Family Life' A Humanitarian Ground If Accused & Victim Marry: Kerala High Court
Tellmy Jolly
26 July 2024 7:00 AM GMT
The Kerala High Court has held that crimes that tarnish women's dignity and honour, such as rape, POCSO Act offences cannot be quashed on compromise or settlement. However, if the accused and victim have married and are living together peacefully, this may be a humanitarian ground to allow the quashing of the case.
The 1st accused, in this case, was alleged to have sexually assaulted a 17-year-old victim who became pregnant. The 2nd accused is the victim's mother who failed to inform the police about the crime. They have approached the Court to quash criminal proceedings arguing that accused and victim are married and living together happily.
Justice A. Badharudeen quashed the case against the petitioners on finding that continuing criminal proceedings would affect their married life and the well-being of their children.
“Thus, settlement of cases including offence of rape and POCSO Act offences is not permissible under law. However, in the instant case, though the 1st accused after maintaining relationship with the minor victim subjected her to sexual molestation and she became pregnant, as of now, the 1st accused married the victim and now, they have been living happily with two children. In such cases, the tough nut stand in the way of settlement shall be crushed with humanitarian consideration as the hammer, so as to ensure the peaceful family living of the parties and most importantly to ensure the well being of the children born to them. Hence, there is no necessity to continue criminal proceedings so as to retain them in the hazards of litigation and to collapse their married life and the well being of the children. In view of the matter, in deviation from the general principle, this is a fit case, where quashment is liable to be allowed.”
The prosecution case was that the 1st accused kidnapped the minor victim from the custody of her parents/guardian and committed sexual assault. It is alleged that the victim subsequently became pregnant and the 2nd accused failed to inform the police. Crime was registered against 1st accused for allegedly committing offences punishable under IPC and POCSO Act. Crime was also registered against the 2nd accused under Section 21 of POCSO Act for failing to report the crime.
The petitioners submitted that 1st accused and victim got married and were living happily now. It was also stated that they have two children now. They produced marriage certificate and affidavit supporting settlement to quash the proceedings against them.
The Court stated that serious offences like murder, dacoity, rape or offences affecting moral turpitude under special statues cannot be quashed under Section 482 of CrPC based on settlement between the accused and victim.
The Court further stated that settlement or compromise cannot be permitted in cases like rape, attempt to rape. It 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.”
The Court went on to state that Courts must not take a lenient approach in cases where the accused agrees to marry the victim because it could be a subtle form of coercion for quashing the case. It stated that attempt to take a soft or mediative approach in cases like this sans legal permissibility and exhibits lack of sensibility towards the dignity, the elan vital, of a woman.
It further added that quashing cases in abominable offences would send a wrong signal to society and was against public policy. It stated that habitual offenders could coerce, threaten or compel victims to settle matters if 'settlement' was permitted by Courts.
In the facts of the case, the Court stated that the parties had married and were living happily with two children. It stated that continuing litigation would only affect their peaceful family living and that the case could be quashed on humanitarian grounds.
As such, the petition was allowed and the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate P L Mary Treasa
Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor M P Prasanth
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 476
Case Title: XXX V State of Kerala
Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 2031 OF 2024
