Compromise between accused & survivor no ground to quash child sexual assault case: SC | India News – Times of India

NEW DELHI: Holding that sexual assault of a child is too serious a crime to be allowed to be quashed without trial on the basis of compromise between the accused and survivor’s family, Supreme Court on Thursday said that such offences are not private in nature but against the whole society.
A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar set aside an order of Rajasthan high court which had quashed criminal proceedings against a teacher in sexual assault case of class XI student. The HC let the accused off on the ground that the student’s family compromised with the teacher just a week after the case was lodged. Though the father of the survivor supported the accused in SC also, the court did not accept his plea and paved the way for trial against him on a petition filed by neighbours of the victim student.
“In view of the nature of the offences alleged against the third respondent (the accused), 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 that view of the matter, when by quashing the FIR by invoking the power under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the accused was relieved of the liability to face the trial…,” the bench said.
The apex court said that the HC must have given due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. It said before passing order the Court has to apply its mind to (i) whether the crime is one against the society or against an individual alone (ii) seriousness and how the crime was committed (iii) whether offence(s) is one under a special statute (iv) stage of proceedings and how the accused managed to compromise with the complainant.
“The power under Section 482 of CrPC could not be used to quash proceedings based on compromise if it is in respect of heinous offence which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. When an incident of the aforesaid 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. “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, by quashing FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, by invoking the power under Section 482, CrPC,” it said. Quoting renowned American poet H W Longfellow, the court said a torn jacket might soon be mended, but a bruised heart of a child would be beyond reviviscence. It said that even a third party not directly affected by the crime can invoke the jurisdiction of Supreme Court to seek justice and punish the culprit.
“According to us, such right to a third party to prefer a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is certainly to be recognised and respected in a case where seemingly miscarriage of justice had occurred and still, neither State nor the victim or any relative falling under the term ‘victim’ approached this Court,” it said.