Kerala High Court

Muhammed Rahees vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2025

                                                               2025:KER:49671
Crl.M.C.No.5116/2025                    1


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                        PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

     TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947

                          CRL.MC NO. 5116 OF 2025

     CRIME NO.36/2025 OF Kakkur Police Station, Kozhikode

CR NO.36 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS

COURT      (ATROCITIES         &   SEXUAL       VIOLENCE   AGAINST   WOMEN   &

CHILDREN), KOZHIKODE

PETITIONER:

                MUHAMMED RAHEES 
                AGED 25 YEARS
                AGED 25YEARS, S/O. UMMER,AREECHOLAYIL, PATHIMANGALAM,
                KOZHIKKODE CITY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673571

                BY ADVS. 
                SRI.SANTHARAM.P
                SMT.REKHA ARAVIND
                SRI.P.G.GOKULNATH
                SMT.ELIZABETH PETER

RESPONDENTS:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
                PIN - 682031

      2         XXXXXXXXXX
                AGED XXX YEARS, XXXXXXXXXX

              SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                BY ADV SRI.PAUL P. ABRAHAM

      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   04.07.2025,   THE  COURT  ON   08.07.2025  PASSED  THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                            2025:KER:49671
Crl.M.C.No.5116/2025               2



                                    ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.36/2025 of Kakkur

Police Station, Kozhikode District. The offence alleged against him

are under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(n), 354D(2) and 450 of the Indian

Penal Code (IPC), Sections 63(a), 64(2)(m), 78(2), 87 and 332(b) of

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3(a) r/w 4(1) and

11(iv) r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act

(for short 'POCSO Act')

2. The prosecution case is that on 21.11.2021 at about

07:30 p.m, the petitioner committed penetrative sexual assault on

the de facto complainant, aged 17 years, at her residence, ignoring

her resistance. It is alleged that while perpetrating the above crime,

the petitioner gave the promise of marriage to the de facto

complainant to pacify her. Thereafter, the petitioner is alleged to

have indulged in sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant on

three occasions in the year 2023 by inducing her to believe that he

would marry her. On 15.08.2024 also, the petitioner allegedly

resorted to sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant at her

house with the offer of marriage. Lateron, the petitioner retracted 2025:KER:49671

from his promise to marry the de facto complainant, and married

another girl. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the

aforesaid offence.

3. The case has been registered by the Kakkur Police on the

basis of the first information statement given by the de facto

complainant. After the completion of the investigation, the Inspector

of Police, Kakkur filed the final report before the Additional Sessions

Court (for the trial of cases relating to atrocities and sexual violence

towards women and children), Kozhikode.

4. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that

he is totally innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in this

case. According to the petitioner, he was in love with the de facto

complainant, and that she had levelled false and baseless allegations

against him when he got engaged to another girl. 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.

2025:KER:49671

6. The case on hand relates to the offence of penetrative

sexual assault and rape coming under the relevant provisions of

POCSO Act and IPC, committed by the petitioner upon the survivor

by giving the promise of marriage. At the time when the first

incident is said to have taken place on 21.11.2021, the survivor was a

minor, aged 17 years only. The first information statement would

reveal that the petitioner resorted to penetrative sexual assault upon

her on that day, ignoring her resistance and pacifying her by saying

that he would marry her. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have

resorted to sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant on three

occasions in the year 2023, and finally on 15.08.2024 at her

residence, after getting her consent by inducing her to believe that

he would marry her. By deceiving the survivor, the petitioner is said

to have married another girl, which prompted the survivor to prefer

this complaint against the petitioner. As far as the first incident of

21.11.2021, the consent of the survivor is immaterial since she was a

minor during that time. With regard to the subsequent incidents of

the years 2023 and 2024, it is apparent from the prosecution records

that, right from the very beginning, the petitioner was having no

intention at all to marry the survivor and that her consent for sexual 2025:KER:49671

intercourse was obtained by deception. Thus, the case on hand

reveals a typical incident of continuous rape and penetrative assault

perpetrated upon a girl of tender age. In such a case, the law does

not permit the compounding of offence even if the offender

succeeded in winning over the survivor and her relatives and getting

an affidavit sworn by her to the effect that she has no complaints.

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 2025:KER:49671

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 observed in the aforesaid decision that the dignity of a

woman is part of her non-perishable and immortal self and no one 2025:KER:49671

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:49671

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. 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 2025:KER:49671

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