Can HC Quash Sexual Assault Case Against Minor Based On Compromise Between Parties? Supreme Court To Examine, Appoints R Basant As Amicus

A Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice J.B. Pardiwala heard a petition challenging a High Court's decision of exercising its powers under Section 482 of CrPC and quashing criminal proceedings against a person accused of outraging a minor girl's modesty based on a compromise reached by the parties. The bench has listed the matter for 31st October and appointed Senior Advocate and former Kerala High Court judge, R. Basant as amicus curiae in the matter. 

As per the petitioner, in an incident which occurred on 6th January 2022, the modesty of a girl student aged about 15 years was outraged by her school teacher. This led to the lodging of an FIR by the father of the girl. The concerned accused named in the FIR was however never arrested. The petitioner stated that a compromise executed between the family members of the girls and the accused became the basis for filing a petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure by the accused.

Going by the compromise which was presented before the court, the High Court allowed the petition filed by the accused and quashed the proceedings. The order passed by the High Court observed that there was an opposition on part of the Public Prosecutor for the same, however, the High Court relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Anand v. State of Punjab (2012), which stated that even in non-compoundable offences, the process of court can be invoked to have the proceedings quashed on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties.

Challenging the High Court order, a third party filed an Article 32 petition before the Supreme Court.

At the outset, the counsel for petitioner stated that the petitioners were villagers of the place where the alleged offence against the minor had taken place. The primary issue court discussed in today's hearings was the locus of the petitioner. CJI Lalit remarked–

"The concept of locus in civil law or other laws is something different, it is at a different pedestal. In criminal law, the matter has to actually have a different connotation. Imagine the judgement where the then Chief Minister was acquitted by the High Court and an appeal was preferred by the State of Bihar, where the investigation was carried on by CBI. This court, a bench of three judges said that the State of Bihar, though the offence was committed in State of Bihar, did not have jurisdiction to maintain an appeal. Why? Because under law it is only the prerogative of CBI, the investigative agency, to maintain the appeal. Now we have gone to that extent and said that in criminal law the locus has a very different connotation because it has the implication that perhaps someone's liberty will be put to prejudice. Therefore this kind of elasticity, that you are advocating for...at whose instance do we go in?"

The court recognised that the nature of the offence was societal. The petitioner also argued that the State of Rajasthan should have come before the court but the State did not and hence the petitioner had to approach the court in public interest.

The bench discussed means through which the petition could be taken by the court. CJI Lalit enquired–

"Is there a power under CRPC that we can take suo-moto action? The High Court can. You know it was done by Bombay High Court in one of those cases– where a person was granted imprisonment for six months but Bombay High Court took suo moto cognizance in revision and increased punishment to 3 years. We are struggling with the point that at whose instance can we do this? Do we do it on suo moto or do we do it at the instance of somebody? What you are saying about the incident, the merits of the matter, we are not questioning that."

Accordingly, the bench passed the following order–

"This petition submits that an offence which was otherwise punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and the provisions of the POCSO Act and which by very nature is against the society and non-compoundable was allowed to be quashed by an order passed by the High Court. It is further submitted that State of Rajasthan, the guardian of the interest of the persons living in the state, has chosen not to appeal against the said decision of the High Court. It is in the circumstances that the instant petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed before us. Apart from the issues touching the merits of the matter and whether a power under Section 482 of the code was rightly exercised, the matter also raises issues concerning the locus of the present petitioner to maintain and seek the relief as prayed for. The original accused as well as the father of victim be made party to the instant proceedings. Issue notice returnable on 31 October 2022. Considering the importance of the issues involved in the matter, we request Mr R. Basant to be the amicus curiae in the matter."

The matter is now listed for 31st October 2022. 

CASE TITLE: Ramji Lal Bairwa And Anr. v. State of Rajasthan And Anr. WP(Crl) No. 253/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order