A. Badharudeen, J
1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure AI FIR and Annexure AVI Final Report in Crime No.2242 of 2021 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta, now pending as S.C.No.242/2022 on the files of the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. The petitioner herein is the accused in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the relevant documents produced.
3. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, the accused herein, on false promise of marriage, had sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant, on different dates between 20.4.2020 to 20.8.2021, at her rented house and other places. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 450 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the accused.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, now, the matter has been settled and the de facto complainant filed an affidavit supporting settlement, stating that the accused married her on 12.12.2021 and they have been living happily, as husband and wife. Copy of the marriage certificate also has been produced. In view of the settlement, the matter is liable to be quashed, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant also supported the settlement.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the accused and the de facto complainant got married and they are living happily.
7. Adverting to the power of this Court to quash criminal proceedings resorting to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, indubitably, in respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. In a case of rape or attempt of rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of. 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. Sometimes solace is given that the perpetrator of the crime has acceded to enter into wedlock with her which is nothing but putting pressure in an adroit manner; and that the Courts are to remain absolutely away from this subterfuge to adopt a soft approach to the case, for any kind of liberal approach has to be put in the compartment of spectacular error. Or to put it differently, it would be in the realm of a sanctuary of error. Such an attitude reflects lack of sensibility towards the dignity, the elan vital, of a woman. 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. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. 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.”
8. Thus, the law as it stands is that although High Court can invoke its jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C. even in non-compoundable offence and can quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties even in the cases of non-compoundable offences but while exercising its jurisdiction this Court must consider the fact that whether the proceeding relates to any serious and heinous offences and whether the crime in question has impact over the society. In cases of serious nature which affects the society at large this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings on the basis of compromise executed between the parties. (See decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another reported in [(2014) 9 SCC 466], Shimbhu v. State of Haryana reported in [AIR 2014 Supreme Court 739](three Bench), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal reported in [AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3003] (two Bench), Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another reported in [(2017) 9 SCC 641], State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. reported in [(2019) 5 SCC 688], Arun Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary and Another reported in [(2020) (3) SCC 736], Ram Gopal & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [(2021 0 Supreme (SC) 529)], Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat & others reported in [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642], P.Dharmraj v. Shanmugam and others decided on 8th September 2022 in Crl.Appeal Nos.1515-1516 of 2022).
9. Thus, settlement of cases including offence of rape and PoCSO Act offences is not permissible under law. However, in the instant case, though the accused, after maintaining relationship with the de facto complainant, subjected her to sexual molestation, later, the accused married the de facto complainant and now, they have been living happily. 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. 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. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the prayer for quashment.
Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure AI FIR and Annexure AVI Final Report in Crime No.2242 of 2021 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta, now pending as S.C.No.242/2022 on the files of the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, against the petitioner herein, stand quashed.
