Kerala High Court
Alok Saseendran vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2025
2025:KER:60403
Crl.M.C.No.6123/2025
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 6123 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1287/2024 OF PETTA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ALOK SASEENDRAN
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O SASEENDRAN,
PILAKKAL HOUSE ,
PARIYARAM.P.O,KANNUR,
PIN - 670502
BY ADV SMT.KEERTHI SOLOMON
RESPONDENT/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PETTAH POLICE STATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695024
3 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADV SHRI.BIMAL V.S.
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:60403
Crl.M.C.No.6123/2025
-:2:-
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1287/2024 of Petta Police
Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged against him are
under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 376, 376(2)(n), 323, 506 & 420 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 66E, 67 & 67A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed
rape upon the de facto complainant on 20.07.2020 after bringing her to a
hotel room under the pretext that they were to discuss about their
marriage. It is the specific allegation of the de facto complainant that the
accused pounced upon her and resorted to forceful sexual intercourse.
That apart, it is alleged that the accused recorded the visuals of the
coitus in his mobile phone. Thus, the accused is alleged to have
committed the aforesaid offence.
3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the
issue has been amicably settled with the de facto complainant, and
hence it is highly necessary to quash the proceedings against him. An
affidavit said to have been sworn by the de facto complainant is placed
on record in support of the above contention.
2025:KER:60403
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5. In the affidavit filed before this Court, purportedly sworn by
the de facto complainant, it is stated that the issue has been amicably
settled with the accused, and hence she does not want to pursue the
matter further.
6. It is well-settled that heinous offences like rape, cannot be
quashed on the basis of the compromise with the victim.
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
2025:KER:60403
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 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
2025:KER:60403
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 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."
2025:KER:60403
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."
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
2025:KER:60403
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 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
2025:KER:60403
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. For the aforesaid reasons, there are absolutely no grounds to
quash the FIR registered in this case.
In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.
(Sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST/11.08.25
2025:KER:60403
APPENDIX
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C. NO.
111/2025 OF THE HONOURABLE SESSIONS JUDGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 21.01.2025
