The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition to quash criminal proceedings involving kidnapping and rape under the POCSO Act and IPC. The court held that settlements between parties cannot justify quashing non-compoundable heinous offences affecting society.
Petition to quash criminal proceedings dismissed; interim stay vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2024 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 591 OF 2024
CRIME NO.932/2022 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
LP NO.32 OF 2023 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, TIRUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHAFEEQ AGED 29 YEARS, S/O SIDDIQUE,MACHINJERI HOUSE,KALLINGAL,TIRUR (PO),MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN - 676551
BY ADV. SRI.M.DEVESH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXX AGED 19 YEARS W/O MUHAMMEDKUTTY,KADAMBIL POOZHITHARAMMEL HOUSE,ALINGAL,TRIPRANGODE(PO), PIN - 676108
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI M P PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.591 of 2024 2
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd day of July , 2024
This criminal miscellaneous case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash Annexure 2 final report now pending as LP.32/2023 on the files of the Fast Track Special Court, Tirur, arising from Crime No.922/2022 of Tirur Police Station.
Crl.M.C.No.591 of 2024 3
rape. Later he absconded and accordingly he could not be arrested.
Crl.M.C.No.591 of 2024 4
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,
Crl.M.C.No.591 of 2024 5
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.”
Crl.M.C.No.591 of 2024 6
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 &
Crl.M.C.No.591 of 2024 7
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).
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial court, for information and further steps.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE
MJL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a settlement between the accused and the victim can justify quashing criminal proceedings involving serious non-compoundable offences.
Whether offences under the POCSO Act and sections of IPC involving rape and kidnapping can be compromised or settled.
Whether the High Court can quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in cases of serious offences affecting society.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and AnotherExplained¶32
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and AnotherExplained¶32
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another reported in [(2014) 9 SCC 466] · Who else cites this
Shimbhu v. State of HaryanaExplained¶32
Shimbhu v. State of Haryana reported in [AIR 2014 Supreme Court 739] · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. MadanlalExplained¶32
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal reported in [AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3003] · Who else cites this
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and AnotherExplained¶32
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 & OrsExplained¶33
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors reported in [(2019) 5 SCC 688] · Who else cites this
Arun Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary and AnotherExplained¶33
Arun Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary and Another reported in [(2020) (3) SCC 736] · Who else cites this
Ram Gopal & Another v. State of Madhya PradeshExplained¶33
Ram Gopal & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [(2021 0 Supreme (SC) 529)]
Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat & othersExplained¶33
Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat & others reported in [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642]
P.Dharmraj v. Shanmugam and othersReferred¶33
P.Dharmraj v. Shanmugam and others decided on 8th September 2022
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Shafeeq
State of Kerala
Virgin Victim
A. Badharudeen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
