Recently, the Supreme Court overturned the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to dismiss a sexual assault complaint against a teacher on the grounds of a “Compromise” between the victim’s father and the accused. The Apex Court held that such cases, particularly involving minors, cannot be treated as private matters eligible for compromise-based quashing, underscoring the severe societal implications of offences under the POCSO Act.
The case arose from an allegation against a school teacher, accused of inappropriate conduct towards a minor student by touching her inappropriately. The victim alleged that the teacher rubbed her breast in the classroom and threatened her to keep silent. Following the incident, an FIR was filed under the Indian Penal Code, the POCSO Act, and provisions of the SC/ST Act. However, a compromise was reportedly reached between the teacher and the victim’s family, leading to the Rajasthan High Court quashing the FIR on these grounds. A third-party appellant, a resident from the victim’s village, approached the Supreme Court, contending that heinous offences involving minors should not be dismissed as mere private disputes.
The appellant argued that the High Court erred in treating the case as a personal dispute between two parties, emphasizing that sexual offences against minors under the POCSO Act carry significant public interest. The appellant argued that such compromises undermine the act’s protective intent and disregard its mandate to address and deter child exploitation. The respondent, the accused teacher, argued against the appellant’s standing (locus standi) in challenging the High Court’s decision, claiming the compromise resolved any grievance privately.
The bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar, firmly rejected the High Court’s approach, noting that cases of sexual assault especially those against minors cannot be treated as private matters without broader societal impact. The Court remarked that the nature of the allegations indicated a grave offence against societal morals and warranted rigorous prosecution. The justices stated that such incidents should be viewed as offences against the community, not merely against individuals, given the POCSO Act’s intent to protect children from abuse.
The Court observed, “Rubbing the breast of a child constitutes an offence of 'sexual assault' under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, punishable by imprisonment for a term between three and five years, in addition to a fine. Such offences against children are inherently serious and demand strict judicial scrutiny, not compromise-based resolution”. The bench highlighted that compromising on cases under the POCSO Act contravenes public interest, citing the Court’s earlier decisions in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and Sunil Raikwar v. State and Another, which held that crimes with broader social impact cannot be settled privately.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that the appellant’s involvement as a concerned member of society was valid, affirming that anyone may challenge proceedings when broader social implications are at stake. The bench concluded that the Rajasthan High Court had misapplied the principles in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, noting that while the High Court has discretion in compromise matters, it must exercise it prudently, especially in serious offenses like those covered by the POCSO Act.
The Apex Court emphasized the need for continued legal proceedings in this case, asserting that the dismissal of serious charges based solely on family settlement disregards both public interest and the foundational objectives of the POCSO Act. The decision mandates that the trial against the accused teacher proceed, reinforcing that crimes involving children are matters of grave societal concern.
Picture Source :