MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

POCSO | Offences Against Children Are Offences Against Society and Cannot Be Compromised: Supreme Court

09 November 2024 1:53 PM

By: sayum


Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., overturning a Rajasthan High Court order that had quashed an FIR involving child sexual assault based on a compromise between the accused and the victim’s father. The Supreme Court emphasized that cases of child sexual abuse are not “private matters” and thus cannot be dismissed solely on the basis of an out-of-court settlement. This judgment reinforces the intent behind the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, focusing on the grave societal impact of crimes against children.

The case originated from an incident on January 6, 2022, where a high school student in Rajasthan alleged that her teacher sexually assaulted her in an empty classroom, following which he directed casteist abuse at her. Her father, the complainant, filed an FIR against the teacher under the Indian Penal Code, the POCSO Act, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Subsequently, the accused teacher and the complainant reached an informal settlement, leading to a petition by the accused in the Rajasthan High Court to quash the FIR. Despite opposition from the prosecution, the High Court accepted the petition, citing the amicable resolution and reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which allows for quashing of criminal cases in some private disputes.

However, the Supreme Court intervened after two local residents filed an appeal, challenging the High Court’s decision to quash the case.

Locus Standi of Third Parties in Criminal Appeals: The primary legal question was whether third-party individuals, who were not directly involved in the proceedings, could challenge the quashing of the FIR. The Court observed that the appellants, as local residents, acted in public interest given the nature of the offence, which affected societal morals. The Court ruled that the appellants’ standing was valid, relying on precedents in cases where public-spirited citizens have sought justice in cases involving grave offences against the society.

Limits of High Court’s Power to Quash FIR in Serious Offences: The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court’s authority under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings should be sparingly exercised in cases involving serious offences like child sexual assault. The judgment cited State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, asserting that heinous offences impacting society at large cannot be quashed even with a compromise. The Court further highlighted that the POCSO Act mandates stringent protection for children, and dismissing cases based on settlements undermines this legislative intent.

Public Interest and Child Protection: Justice Ravikumar underscored that crimes under the POCSO Act are inherently offences against society, demanding uncompromising prosecution to uphold justice and public safety. The judgment reads, “The act of sexual assault on a child is a crime not merely against the individual but against societal norms and values, which the POCSO Act seeks to protect.”

High Court’s Error in Assessing ‘Private Nature’ of Offence: The Supreme Court criticized the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, noting that it misinterpreted Gian Singh by treating the offence as personal and private. The Court pointed out that cases involving minors and sexual crimes do not qualify for such leniency due to the severe psychological impact on the child and the risk of setting a damaging societal precedent.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court’s quashing order. It directed the Rajasthan police to resume the investigation under the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act, ensuring that legal proceedings continue without interference from informal settlements.

In its concluding remarks, the Court emphasized that the intent of the POCSO Act is to safeguard children from sexual offences and that permitting a compromise in such cases would be contrary to the spirit of justice and deterrence aimed at preventing such heinous acts.

The Supreme Court’s judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to uphold child protection laws without allowing settlements in cases that deeply impact the social order. The ruling strengthens the message that crimes against children, particularly sexual offences, will be rigorously prosecuted regardless of private settlements between the parties involved.

Date of Decision: November 7, 2024

Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Latest Legal News