Kerala High Court
Libin Paul vs State Of Kerala on 14 August, 2025
2025:KER:61382
Crl.M.C.No.5303/2025
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 5303 OF 2025
CRIME NO.108/2024 OF KENICHIRA POLICE STATION, WAYANAD
PETITIONER/ ACCUSED:
LIBIN PAUL
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.PAUL KOTTEKUDI HOUSE,
THAZHEMUNDA P.O.,
KENICHIRA S.BATHERY TALUK,
WAYANAD, PIN - 673596
BY ADVS.SMT.V.C.ARCHANA
SMT.CELINE JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KENICHIRA POLICE STATION,
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-31., PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADV SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)FOR R2
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:61382
Crl.M.C.No.5303/2025
-:2:-
ORDER
The accused in Crime No.108/2024 of Kenichira Police Station,
Wayanad, has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, 'BNSS') to quash the
proceedings against him in the said case, which is registered in
connection with the commission of offence under Sections 450 &
376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC'). The
prosecution case is that the petitioner committed rape upon the de facto
complainant at 2:00 p.m, on 11.08.2023, by giving a false promise of
marriage. It is further stated that such incidents were repeated during
the period between 11.08.2023 and 17.12.2023 at various places in
Texas. It is also contended that as a result of the above relationship, the
de facto complainant became pregnant.
2. 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 matter has been amicably settled with the de
facto complainant, who had sworn an affidavit stating that she has no
subsisting grievance.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
2025:KER:61382
4. This is a case where the allegation against the petitioner is
that he resorted to criminal trespass into the residence of the de facto
complainant and committed rape upon her under the false promise of
marriage. The investigation is reported to be in progress.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, at present, the
Crime Branch is in charge of the investigation in this case.
6. It is true that the de facto complainant has filed an affidavit
stating that the issue has been amicably settled with the accused, and
hence she has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the
petitioner. However, it is not possible for this Court to ignore the fact that
the offence involved in this case is one punishable under Sections
372(2)(n) & 450 IPC. It is well settled that in heinous offences like rape,
murder and POCSO crimes, the Courts are not expected to quash the
proceedings on the basis of the compromise of the case with the victims.
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:
2025:KER:61382
"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
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.
2025:KER:61382
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
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
2025:KER:61382
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."
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:61382
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
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
2025:KER:61382
offenders succeeded in winning over the victims or their relatives by
inducement or threat.
13. Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is not possible for this Court to
exercise the inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash
the FIR registered in the case. If at all the de facto complainant has got
a case that everything had happened pursuant to the consent extended
by her, she has to approach the Investigating Officer and apprise him
about those aspects so that the Investigating Officer would be able to
take a right decision in the matter of filing the final report.
With the above observations, this petition is dismissed.
(Sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST/14.08.25
