The background to all this is an all-too-familiar story in many parts of India where sexual harassment and abuse can go unpunished due to a “compromise” between the accused and the victim’s family due to various reasons. In this case, on January 6, 2022, when the victim, 16, then a student of Class XI in a higher secondary school, was alone in the classroom, her male teacher, seeing her alone and after ensuring nobody else was near the classroom, entered, reached behind her and started patting her cheeks and soon put his hand inside her bodice and rubbed her breasts. In shock and anger, she got up and ran away. The accused followed and hurled abuses with words like “dedh Chamar”, etc. The victim sat near the gate and beseeched other teachers for help, but instead, they persuaded her to conceal the incident
The school principal, when informed about the incident, merely took the girl’s signature on a blank sheet of paper. Meanwhile, another teacher came to the residence of the victim and took her mother to the school on the pretext that her daughter was not feeling well.
On reaching there, the mother found the daughter in a terrified and numbed state; she could say nothing to the mother. However, on reaching home, she divulged the incident to her mother who informed her husband on his mobile phone as he was away in another village.
The next day, the victim’s father came back home and she narrated the whole incident to him, He lodged an FIR on January 8, 2022, at Sardar Gangapur City Police Station, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan, against the teacher under Sections 354A, 342, 509 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, as well as Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3( 1)(b) and 3(2) (vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Subsequently, the teacher reached a compromise with the victim’s father later that month on the issue and moved a petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the FIR and all further proceedings thereon. Under the order dated February 4, 2022, the High Court, despite opposition by the public prosecutor, allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all further proceedings.
The apex court noted that the impugned order revealed that based on the fact that the teacher settled the dispute amicably with the victim’s father and relying on the decision in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab, the High Court quashed the FIR and all further proceedings invoking the power under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, solely based on the fact that a compromise was arrived at between the teacher and the victim’s father. On November 7, 2024, the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the High Court.
The division bench of Justices CT Ravi Kumar and Sanjay Kumar passed the order while hearing a petition filed in Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. In unambiguous terms, the top court held that before exercising the power under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime besides observing that heinous and serious offences could not be quashed even though the victim or the victim’s family and the offender had settled the dispute amicably.
The top court said that having understood the position of law, it is the bounden duty of the concerned court to consider whether the compromise is just and fair, besides being free from undue pressure. A bare perusal of the order, dated February 4, 2022, reveals that the High Court erred in not taking note of proper consideration of the law laid down in Gian Singh’s case while rendering its decision. The apex court further observed that it is to be noted that the complaint which led to the registration of the FIR was filed on January 8, 2022, and the compromise was entered into between the teacher and victim’s father within a few weeks. The top court further said that a perusal of the impugned order would reveal that without even referring to the alleged offence and thereby without looking into the nature and gravity of the offence and solely relying upon the compromise, the High Court gave its verdict. “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 even without advertising to the allegations raised against the teacher in the subject FIR,” the bench observed in its order.
The apex court further said that the victim was then a student of Class XI in a higher secondary school and aged 16 years. The statement in the FIR of the victim’s father itself would reveal that on January 8, 2022, he complained about the pressure from the teacher to restrain him from lodging a report. The compromise was entered immediately thereafter on January 31, 2022. Despite the said position, the High Court did not consider whether the compromise entered into between the parents and the accused could be acted upon or not, in the interest of justice, considering the serious allegations levelled against the teacher.
The apex court further observed in unambiguous terms that the power under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, could not be used to quash proceedings based on compromise if it is in respect of heinous offences which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. When an incident of such 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 has no serious impact on the society, the Court said.
The Supreme Court also observed that the order of the High Court, quashing the FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto solely on the ground that the accused and the complainant had settled the matter, invites interference. “We have no hesitation to hold that in cases of this nature, the fact that in view of compromise entered into between the parties, the chance of a conviction is remote and bleak also cannot be a ground to abruptly terminate the investigation,” the Court said.
The Supreme Court stated that the definition of crime by Blackstone was taken note of in PSR Sadhanantham’s case by the Court as “the breach and violation of public rights and duties which affect the whole community” and observed that in such circumstances, a crime is an act deemed by law to be harmful to society in general, even though its immediate victim is an individual. The Court further observed that in view of the nature of the offences alleged against the teacher, 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 society.
In a similar case, on July 23, 2024, the Allahabad High Court had observed that a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act cannot be terminated on the basis of compromise. The Court refused to quash a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act case on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the minor victim’s family. A single bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar passed the order while hearing a bail application filed by Ram Bihari. The Court said that sexual crimes against children are one of the most heinous crimes, which leave a deep and permanent wound on the mind of the victim-child and affect the mental health, emotional stability and social relations of children.
—By Adarsh Kumar and India Legal Bureau