“Proceedings/FIR in sexual harassment/sexual assault cases cannot be Quashed; the proceeding must continue in the interest of justice: Supreme Court.”
November 7, 2024 2025-03-02 0:27“Proceedings/FIR in sexual harassment/sexual assault cases cannot be Quashed; the proceeding must continue in the interest of justice: Supreme Court.”
“Proceedings/FIR in sexual harassment/sexual assault cases cannot be Quashed; the proceeding must continue in the interest of justice: Supreme Court.”
By Himabindu Lingala
The father of the victim filed an FIR against the accused under Section 354A, 342, 509, and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(vii) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’). The Rajasthan High Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings after an application was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering that the accused teacher and the victim’s father had reached a compromise.
An appeal was filed by a third party challenging the High Courts’ decision to quash the FIR maintaining that FIR contained serious allegations, not private in nature, solely based on a compromise between the accused and the victim’s father.
The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan. Court viewed that the allegations in FIR could be treated as offences against the society and not merely a private matter.
The Supreme Court relying on the mandate set laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], noted that settlement or compromise must satisfy the conscience of the court and that the High Court must consider whether it would be contrary to the interest of justice to quash or continue with criminal proceeding. The Supreme Court stated that the nature and gravity of the crime must be noted and duly regarded before exercising the power under Section 482 of CrPC.
The Court held that halting proceedings under the POCSO Act, merely due to a settlement by a relative of the minor victim, would undermine the legislative intent. It stressed that quashing criminal proceedings in serious crimes like sexual harassment, sexual assault, murder, or rape would be contrary to the interests of justice, and a settlement in such cases would have no legal value.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by a third party. The Court set aside the High Courts’ order, highlighting the public interest involved in Offences alleged under POCSO Act and asserted that such matters must not be dismissed entirely on the premise of settlement between parties.
Case Name: Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3193
