Kerala High Court
Nasser Ahmed vs State Of Kerala on 4 July, 2025
2025:KER:48461
Crl.M.C.No.4976/2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 4976 OF 2025
SC NO.151 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT - II/II ADDL.M.A.C.T.
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
NASSER AHMED,
AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O BDUL KAREEM ELLAS
MANZIL KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR
KATTAPUZHA P.O. KATTAPUZHA VILLAGE
THIRUVALLA .,
PIN - 689103
BY ADV SHRI.AJAI JOHN
RESPONDENT/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXXXXX
AGED XXX YEARS, XXXXXXXXXX
SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.07.2025, THE COURT ON 04.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:48461
Crl.M.C.No.4976/2025 2
ORDER
The petitioner is the second accused in S.C No.151/2025 on the files of Additional Sessions Court-II, Pathanamthitta. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 366, 376, 354, 354A, 354B, 385, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC r/w Section 34 I.P.C.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, along with the first accused, outraged the modesty of the de facto complainant/second respondent and committed rape upon her on multiple occasions during the months of May and June, 2021. It is alleged that, at the first instance, the petitioner and the first accused took the de facto complainant in a car and made her unconscious by serving juice mixed with some stupefying drugs and thereafter resorted to penetrative sexual assault upon her inside the car. The petitioner allegedly recorded the nude visuals of the de facto complainant and threatened her that unless she succumbed to their demands, she would be done away with. It is further alleged that the petitioner committed repeated acts of rape on the de facto complainant after three days from the date of first incident, by 2025:KER:48461 Crl.M.C.No.4976/2025 3 threatening that her nude visuals would be shown to her husband and children.
3. The case has been registered by Thiruvalla Police on 27.11.2021 on the basis of the first information statement given by the de facto complainant. After the completion of the investigation, the Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla laid the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla.
4. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he is totally innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further stated that the issue has been amicably settled with the de facto complainant who had filed an affidavit stating that she has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
6. The prosecution records would reveal that the de facto complainant had been ravaged by the petitioner and the first accused on multiple occasions by subjecting her to death threat and also emotional blackmailing. On the first occasion, the petitioner and the first accused are alleged to have served juice mixed with intoxicating drugs to the de facto complainant and made her unconscious for 2025:KER:48461 Crl.M.C.No.4976/2025 4 perpetrating the gruesome sexual assault. At that time, the petitioner allegedly recorded the nude visuals of the de facto complainant, which he made use of on subsequent occasions to threaten her by saying that it would be shown to her husband and children, to make her surrender to him for further sexual assaults. Thus, the case on hand is not one, of the victim extending consent for sexual intercourse as a result of misconception of facts. On the other hand, this is a typical case where a housewife is alleged to have been ravaged on multiple occasions by subjecting her to criminal intimidation and emotional blackmailing. In such cases, there is absolutely no scope for quashing the proceedings on the basis of the compromise between the parties.
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 2025:KER:48461 Crl.M.C.No.4976/2025 5 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"
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 2025:KER:48461 Crl.M.C.No.4976/2025 6 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 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 2025:KER:48461 Crl.M.C.No.4976/2025 7 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 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."
2025:KER:48461 Crl.M.C.No.4976/2025 8 11. Very 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 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 482 Cr.P.C/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha 2025:KER:48461 Crl.M.C.No.4976/2025 9 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.
13. As far as the present case is concerned, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the proceedings against him by acting upon the affidavit sworn by the victim that she has no subsisting grievance against him 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
jsr