Recently, the Karnataka High Court addressed the constitutionality of agreements to settle public crimes such as murder, rape against minors.
High Court examined that “any agreement or contract would be void for the reason that if its consideration is opposed to public policy”.
Brief Fact
Abdul Jaleel, an Assistant Secretary at a Grama Panchayat, allegedly raped a colleague on March 13, 2016, after inviting her to the office for important work. Initially apprehensive, the woman later sought medical attention and revealed ongoing sexual abuse after Jaleel promised marriage. A criminal case was filed against him in 2018, which Jaleel challenged in the High Court, claiming false implication of extortion.
Contention of Petitioner :
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations were false, asserting that any sexual intercourse was consensual. He also submitted two agreements between the petitioner and the respondent, claiming that the petitioner was falsely implicated to extort money. The counsel further contended that the prosecution’s case is driven by malice and intended to seek revenge against the petitioner making it liable to be quashed.
Contention of Respondent :
The counsel for the respondent opposed the quashing of the case and argued that the agreement did not negate the prosecution’s allegations. The counsel further stated that the proceedings should not be quashed if the prosecution’s evidence prima facie shows that the accused committed an offence punishable under section 376(2)(b)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.
Observation of the Court :
HC Bench observed that the incident in 2016 could not be prima facie considered consensual, stating, “In so far as the incident on 13.03.2016, the same could not be held as one arose out of consent, prima facie”.
HC Bench stated that a trial is necessary to allow the prosecution to present evidence.
High Court also noted that the legality of agreements, which were presented to support the quashing of proceedings, it questioned the validity of an agreement intended to settle public offences such as murder, rape and atrocities against children. The court referred several judgements, including Union Carbide Corporation and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1991 KHC 1046], to discuss contracts with unlawful consideration. It noted that agreements to settle non-compoundable offences, like those resulting from coercion or stifling of prosecution, are invalid if they contravene public policy.
HC Bench held that, "Thus it is well-settled law that any agreement or contract would be void for the reason that if its consideration is opposed to public policy. In the same manner, contract or agreement for withdrawing from prosecution is nothing but stifling the prosecution involving public offence and the same also is opposed to public policy”.
The decision of the Court :
The court dismissed the plea to quash the rape case, stating that the agreements presented were intended to obstruct the prosecution and could not be used to quash the proceedings.
Title: Abdul Jaleel v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Coram: Justice A. Badharudeen
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. A. Ranjith Narayanan, A. Simi
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. KK Razia, M.P. Prasanth (Public Prosecutor)
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
