Kerala High Court
Shyam Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2025
2025:KER:49811
Crl.M.C.No.5062/2025
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 5062 OF 2025
CRIME NO.274/2024 OF HARIPPAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CP NO.79 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS- I, HARIPAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHYAM KUMAR
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. SASIKUMAR,
SREESAILAM HOUSE,
CHATIYARA MURI,
THAMARAKKULAM VILLAGE,
NOW RESIDING AT GOURI BHAVANAM,
KADUVINAL MURI, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 690501
BY ADVS. SHRI.ALEX K.JOHN
SHRI.SATHEESH T.P.
SHRI.ARUN K.V.
SHRI.NINAN THOMAS
SHRI.GEGO GEORGE
SHRI.SURESH P.N.
SHRI.SIJIN STANLEY
SMT.PRATHITHA MARIYAM THOMAS
RESPONDENS/ DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE :
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 MANIYAMMA
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O.SUBRAMANIAN, MANOHARA VILASAM,
2025:KER:49811
Crl.M.C.No.5062/2025
-:2:-
NEENDOOR, PALLIPPAD,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 690512
BY ADV SMT. JILCY JACOB FOR R2
SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2025, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49811
Crl.M.C.No.5062/2025
-:3:-
ORDER
The petitioner is the first accused in C.P No.79/2025 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Haripad. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(1)(2), 366, 450, 323 & 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The prosecution case is that on 21.01.2024 and on 21.02.2024, the petitioner had committed rape of the de facto complainant/second respondent after criminally trespassing into her residence and exploiting the financial indebtedness which she owed him. It is the further allegation that the petitioner had also compelled the de facto complainant to have sexual intercourse with the second accused by threatening that her nude photos taken by him would be circulated in social media. The case has been registered by the Haripad Police on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the de facto complainant on 20.03.2024. After the completion of the investigation, the Inspector of Police, Haripad, laid the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Haripad.
3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the issue has been amicably settled with the de facto complainant/second 2025:KER:49811 Crl.M.C.No.5062/2025 -:4:- respondent, and hence the prosecution proceedings against him are liable to be quashed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
4. The criminal proceedings against the petitioner pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Haripad, as C.P.No.79/2025, are sought to be quashed stating the reason that the matter has been compromised with the survivor. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the affidavit sworn by the survivor on 09.06.2025 in support of the argument that the criminal prosecution against the petitioner, is liable to be terminated. On going through the aforesaid affidavit, it is seen that the de facto complainant/second respondent has stated that she has settled the issue with the petitioner and hence the proceedings related to the FIR and the final report are to be quashed.
5. It is pertinent to note that the case on hand is about the alleged rape committed by the petitioner upon the de facto complainant/ second respondent on two days in the year 2024. On both the above occasions, the petitioner allegedly threatened the de facto complainant and made her surrender to him for perpetrating the crime. The 2025:KER:49811 Crl.M.C.No.5062/2025 -:5:- petitioner is also alleged to have compelled the de facto complainant to have sexual intercourse with the second accused by threatening her that her nude photos taken by him would be circulated in social media. Thus, the facts of the case would reveal that this is a typical case of sexual violence upon the de facto complainant, and that there is no element of consent extended by the de facto complainant to the petitioner to indulge in sexual intercourse with her. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner is alleged to have exploited the financial indebtedness which the de facto complainant owed him to resort to sexual violence upon her. In such a case, the compromise said to have been arrived at with the survivor cannot be taken as a reason to quash the proceedings against the offenders.
6. 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 2025:KER:49811 Crl.M.C.No.5062/2025 -:6:- 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"
7. 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.
8. 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 2025:KER:49811 Crl.M.C.No.5062/2025 -:7:- 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 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 2025:KER:49811 Crl.M.C.No.5062/2025 -:8:- 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."
9. 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:49811 Crl.M.C.No.5062/2025 -:9:-
10. 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.
11. 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 Sanhita, 2023 on 2025:KER:49811 Crl.M.C.No.5062/2025 -:10:- 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.
12. 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.
13. 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:49811 Crl.M.C.No.5062/2025 -:11:- APPENDIX PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 20.03.2024 IN CRIME NO.274/2024 OF HARIPPAD POLICE ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE DATED 25.02.2025 IN CRIME NO.274/2024 OF HARIPPAD POLICE STATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, HARIPPAD IN C.P.NO.79/2025 ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLED AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.05.2024 EXECUTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN ANNEXURE A4 THE ORIGINAL OF THE SETTLED AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.06.2025 HEREIN