Kerala High Court
Bindhu.S vs State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2025
2025:KER:54365
Crl.M.C.No.5583/2025
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 5583 OF 2025
CRIME NO.13/2016 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
IN SC NO.974 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.13:
BINDHU.S.
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O.SASIKUMAR,
HOUSE NO.36. VAYALIKKADA,
MUTTADA P.O. KAWADIAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695025
BY ADVS.SHRI.T.K.SANDEEP
SHRI.RAJESH M.
SMT.SWETHA R.
RESPONDENT/ DE FACTO COMPLAINANT /STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 YAMUNA
AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.SHOBA,
PUTHANVEETTIL HOUSE,
MANJADITHALAKKA, VILAPPILSALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695573
BY ADV SHRI.AMJITH C.M.
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.07.2025, THE COURT ON 25.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54365
Crl.M.C.No.5583/2025
-:2:-
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the 13th accused in S.C.No.974/2024 on the
files of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this petition
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to
quash the proceedings against her in the said case.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, along with 14
other accused, resorted to human trafficking, by means of internet, by
inducing ladies by giving false promises and getting them recruited for
the purpose of prostitution, and thereby committed the offence under
Section 370(1)(2)(3) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 & Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It is alleged
that the accused made use of a website for effecting publication that
good looking college and school girls are available for sex, and thus lured
customers for facilitating prostitution with the ladies recruited and
transported by them to hotel rooms and apartments.
3. The case has been registered by the Cyber Crime Police
Station, Thiruvananthapuram, on 21.05.2016 on the basis of the
direction received from the Inspector General of Police, CBCID,
Thiruvananthapuram. The specific allegation against the petitioner herein
is that she had brought CW7, a lady aged 29 years, to her house at
2025:KER:54365
Muttada by about 7:00 p.m. on 25.05.2016 and attempted to take her in
an auto rickshaw to a hotel room by saying that, if she co-operated with
the person staying in that hotel room, she could get plenty of money.
4. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that she
is totally innocent and that she has been falsely implicated in this case.
According to the petitioner, the offences alleged are not brought out
even if the prosecution records are accepted as such. It is further
contended that the issue has been amicably settled with the aggrieved
person (CW7) and hence the proceedings against the petitioner are liable
to be quashed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
6. As already stated above, the specific allegation of the
prosecution as against the petitioner herein is that she had brought CW7,
a lady aged 29 years, from her house to the residence of the petitioner
and thereafter, took her in an auto rickshaw on the way to a hotel for
presenting CW7 to a person who stayed in that hotel. The attempt of
the petitioner to bring CW7 to the hotel room for sexual exploitation did
not succeed due to the intervention of the Police in the meanwhile.
Thus, it could be seen from the prosecution records that there are
2025:KER:54365
sufficient materials garnered by the investigating agency to fasten the
petitioner with the criminal offence alleged in this case. The mere fact
that the petitioner has managed to win over CW7 and get an affidavit
sworn by her to the effect that she has no complaints, is not a reason to
terminate the prosecution proceedings against the petitioner.
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
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"
2025:KER:54365
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
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
2025:KER:54365
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."
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
2025:KER:54365
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
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
2025:KER:54365
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 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. The offence of human trafficking of ladies for the purpose of
sexual exploitation which comes under the definition of Section 370 IPC
has to be considered on the same footing as that of other sexual
offences like rape and POCSO crimes.
13. As far as the present case is concerned, the prayer of the
petitioner to quash the proceedings against her by acting upon the
affidavit sworn by the victim that she has no subsisting grievance against
2025:KER:54365
her and nor interested in continuing the prosecution, cannot be
entertained since it would be against the settled principles of law in this
regard.
14. 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:54365
APPENDIX
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.13/2016
OF CYBER POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DATED 21.05.2016
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.13/2016 OF CYBER POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 18/06/2022
ANNEXURE III ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23/07/2024
