Kerala High Court
Bindhu.S vs State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2025
2025:KER:54365
Crl.M.C.No.5583/2025
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 5583 OF 2025
CRIME NO.13/2016 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
IN SC NO.974 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.13:
BINDHU.S.
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O.SASIKUMAR,
HOUSE NO.36. VAYALIKKADA,
MUTTADA P.O. KAWADIAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695025
BY ADVS.SHRI.T.K.SANDEEP
SHRI.RAJESH M.
SMT.SWETHA R.
RESPONDENT/ DE FACTO COMPLAINANT /STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 YAMUNA
AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.SHOBA,
PUTHANVEETTIL HOUSE,
MANJADITHALAKKA, VILAPPILSALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695573
BY ADV SHRI.AMJITH C.M.
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.07.2025, THE COURT ON 25.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54365
Crl.M.C.No.5583/2025
-:2:-
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the 13th accused in S.C.No.974/2024 on the files of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings against her in the said case.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, along with 14 other accused, resorted to human trafficking, by means of internet, by inducing ladies by giving false promises and getting them recruited for the purpose of prostitution, and thereby committed the offence under Section 370(1)(2)(3) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 & Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It is alleged that the accused made use of a website for effecting publication that good looking college and school girls are available for sex, and thus lured customers for facilitating prostitution with the ladies recruited and transported by them to hotel rooms and apartments.
3. The case has been registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, on 21.05.2016 on the basis of the direction received from the Inspector General of Police, CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram. The specific allegation against the petitioner herein is that she had brought CW7, a lady aged 29 years, to her house at 2025:KER:54365 Crl.M.C.No.5583/2025 -:3:- Muttada by about 7:00 p.m. on 25.05.2016 and attempted to take her in an auto rickshaw to a hotel room by saying that, if she co-operated with the person staying in that hotel room, she could get plenty of money.
4. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that she is totally innocent and that she has been falsely implicated in this case. According to the petitioner, the offences alleged are not brought out even if the prosecution records are accepted as such. It is further contended that the issue has been amicably settled with the aggrieved person (CW7) and hence the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 6. As already stated above, the specific allegation of the prosecution as against the petitioner herein is that she had brought CW7, a lady aged 29 years, from her house to the residence of the petitioner and thereafter, took her in an auto rickshaw on the way to a hotel for presenting CW7 to a person who stayed in that hotel. The attempt of the petitioner to bring CW7 to the hotel room for sexual exploitation did not succeed due to the intervention of the Police in the meanwhile. Thus, it could be seen from the prosecution records that there are 2025:KER:54365 Crl.M.C.No.5583/2025 -:4:- sufficient materials garnered by the investigating agency to fasten the petitioner with the criminal offence alleged in this case. The mere fact that the petitioner has managed to win over CW7 and get an affidavit sworn by her to the effect that she has no complaints, is not a reason to terminate the prosecution proceedings against the petitioner. 7. In the celebrated decision of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in unequivocal terms that there is absolutely no scope for any compromise in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity etc. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment laying down the law in this regard is extracted hereunder:
"xxxx No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. Xxxxxxx"
2025:KER:54365 Crl.M.C.No.5583/2025 -:5:-
8. In Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [(2017) 9 SCC 641], the Apex Court reiterated the law laid down in Gian Singh (supra) and held that heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and decoity cannot be appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute, and that such offences are not private in nature, but have a serious impact upon society. It is further observed thereunder that 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.
9. In State of M.P v. Madanlal [(2015) 7 SCC 681], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the offence of rape or attempt to rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of, and those offences are crimes against the body of a woman which is her own temple, and that those are offences which suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. It is further observed in the aforesaid decision that the dignity of a woman is part of her non-perishable and immortal self and no one should ever think of painting in clay, and there cannot be a compromise or settlement as it 2025:KER:54365 Crl.M.C.No.5583/2025 -:6:- would be against her honour which matters the most. The relevant paragraph in the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court is extracted hereunder:
18. The aforesaid view was expressed while dealing with the imposition of sentence. We would like to clearly state that in a case of rape or attempt to rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of. These are crimes against the body of a woman which is her own temple.
These are the offences which suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. And 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 we say with emphasis 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." 10. In Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan [(2025) 5 SCC 117], the Apex Court has made it clear that heinous and serious offences could not be quashed even though the victim or victim's family 2025:KER:54365 Crl.M.C.No.5583/2025 -:7:- and the offender had settled the dispute. The relevant paragraph of the judgment where the law is laid down in the above regard, is extracted hereunder:
"36. Thus, in unambiguous terms this Court held that before exercising the power under Section 482CrPC the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime besides observing and holding that heinous and serious offences could not be quashed even though a victim or victim's family and the offender had settled the dispute. This Court held that such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. Having understood the position of law on the second question that it is the bounden duty of the court concerned to consider whether the compromise is just and fair besides being free from undue pressure we will proceed to consider the matter further."
11. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the landmark judgment of the case In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents [2024 SCC Online SC 2055], that when offences of rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault are committed, by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or Section 482 of the Cr.PC, the High Court cannot acquit an accused whose guilt has been proved. It is true that the aforesaid dictum applies to a case where the offence alleged was found to have been proved in the trial. But, the 2025:KER:54365 Crl.M.C.No.5583/2025 -:8:- dictum in the aforesaid decision, when taken along with the law laid down by the Apex Court, consistently alerting the High Courts against the exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr.PC for stifling the prosecution on the ground of minor drawbacks, it has to be taken that quashment cannot be resorted to when the records relied on by the prosecution are prima facie indicative of the commission of offence by the accused.
12. Thus the position of law is now settled that the prosecution of heinous offences like rape and POCSO Act crimes cannot be terminated by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on the basis of the compromise which arose out of a situation where the offenders succeeded in winning over the victims or their relatives by inducement or threat. The offence of human trafficking of ladies for the purpose of sexual exploitation which comes under the definition of Section 370 IPC has to be considered on the same footing as that of other sexual offences like rape and POCSO crimes.
13. As far as the present case is concerned, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the proceedings against her by acting upon the affidavit sworn by the victim that she has no subsisting grievance against 2025:KER:54365 Crl.M.C.No.5583/2025 -:9:- her and nor interested in continuing the prosecution, cannot be entertained since it would be against the settled principles of law in this regard.
14. In view of the discussions aforesaid, I find no merit in the present petition for quashing the criminal prosecution against the petitioner.
In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST
2025:KER:54365
Crl.M.C.No.5583/2025
-:10:-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.13/2016
OF CYBER POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 21.05.2016 ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.13/2016 OF CYBER POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 18/06/2022 ANNEXURE III ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23/07/2024