Kerala High Court
Nasser Ahmed vs State Of Kerala on 4 July, 2025
2025:KER:48461
Crl.M.C.No.4976/2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 4976 OF 2025
SC NO.151 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT - II/II ADDL.M.A.C.T.
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
NASSER AHMED,
AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O BDUL KAREEM ELLAS
MANZIL KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR
KATTAPUZHA P.O. KATTAPUZHA VILLAGE
THIRUVALLA .,
PIN - 689103
BY ADV SHRI.AJAI JOHN
RESPONDENT/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXXXXX
AGED XXX YEARS, XXXXXXXXXX
SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.07.2025, THE COURT ON 04.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:48461
Crl.M.C.No.4976/2025 2
ORDER
The petitioner is the second accused in S.C No.151/2025 on the
files of Additional Sessions Court-II, Pathanamthitta. The offences
alleged against him are under Sections 366, 376, 354, 354A, 354B,
385, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC r/w Section 34 I.P.C.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, along with the
first accused, outraged the modesty of the de facto
complainant/second respondent and committed rape upon her on
multiple occasions during the months of May and June, 2021. It is
alleged that, at the first instance, the petitioner and the first accused
took the de facto complainant in a car and made her unconscious by
serving juice mixed with some stupefying drugs and thereafter
resorted to penetrative sexual assault upon her inside the car. The
petitioner allegedly recorded the nude visuals of the de facto
complainant and threatened her that unless she succumbed to their
demands, she would be done away with. It is further alleged that the
petitioner committed repeated acts of rape on the de facto
complainant after three days from the date of first incident, by
2025:KER:48461
threatening that her nude visuals would be shown to her husband and
children.
3. The case has been registered by Thiruvalla Police on
27.11.2021 on the basis of the first information statement given by
the de facto complainant. After the completion of the investigation,
the Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla laid the final report before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla.
4. 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 issue has been amicably settled with
the de facto complainant who had filed an affidavit stating that she
has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
6. The prosecution records would reveal that the de facto
complainant had been ravaged by the petitioner and the first accused
on multiple occasions by subjecting her to death threat and also
emotional blackmailing. On the first occasion, the petitioner and the
first accused are alleged to have served juice mixed with intoxicating
drugs to the de facto complainant and made her unconscious for
2025:KER:48461
perpetrating the gruesome sexual assault. At that time, the petitioner
allegedly recorded the nude visuals of the de facto complainant, which
he made use of on subsequent occasions to threaten her by saying
that it would be shown to her husband and children, to make her
surrender to him for further sexual assaults. Thus, the case on hand
is not one, of the victim extending consent for sexual intercourse as a
result of misconception of facts. On the other hand, this is a typical
case where a housewife is alleged to have been ravaged on multiple
occasions by subjecting her to criminal intimidation and emotional
blackmailing. In such cases, there is absolutely no scope for quashing
the proceedings on the basis of the compromise between the parties.
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
2025:KER:48461
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.
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
2025:KER:48461
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 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
2025:KER:48461
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:48461
11. Very 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
2025:KER:48461
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 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. 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
jsr
