Kerala High Court

Sarath R V vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2025

                                                      2025:KER:50207
Crl.M.C.No.5238/2025            1
                    

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

    THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947

                        CRL.MC NO. 5238 OF 2025

   CRIME NO.309/2024 OF Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

             SARATH R V
             AGED 38 YEARS
             POORAM HOUSE, MUKKOLA POST, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695541


             BY ADVS. 
             SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
             SHRI.REUBEN CHARLY
             SMT.SHAHINA NOUSHAD
             SHRI.KRISHNA S. KARUNAKARAN


RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

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

     2       XXXXXXXXXX
             XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

             BY ADV SHRI.CHRISTY THOMAS
             SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.07.2025, THE COURT ON 10.07.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                           2025:KER:50207
Crl.M.C.No.5238/2025            2
                    

                             ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.309/2024 of Koyilandy

Police Station, a case relating to the commission of offences under

Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(j) and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The prosecution case is that on 27.10.2023 and on

04.02.2024, the petitioner committed rape upon the de facto

complainant at the hotel rooms at Kappad and Parassinikkadavu. It is

alleged that the petitioner took the de facto complainant to the resort

room at Kappad by saying that they have to discuss about the

solemnization of their marriage. The petitioner is alleged to have

forcibly fed the de facto complainant with hot drinks and indulged in

penetrative sexual assault by force. It is further alleged that the

petitioner took the nude photos of the de facto complainant. On

04.02.2024, the petitioner allegedly took the de facto complainant to a

hotel room at Parassinikkadavu saying that they have to offer prayers at

the temple there. At that time also, the petitioner allegedly indulged in

sexual assault upon the de facto complainant by resorting to force and

threat. Later on, the de facto complainant is said to have realised that

it was the usual practice of the petitioner to cheat several girls by

pretending love and offering the promise of marriage.

                                                           2025:KER:50207

3. The case has been registered by the Koyilandy 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, Koyilandy, laid the final report.

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 two instances

of sexual assault committed by the petitioner upon the de facto

complainant on 27.10.2023 & 04.02.2024, are nothing short of blatant

rape against the consent of the de facto complainant. At the time of

the first instance, the petitioner is alleged to have forcibly served hot

drinks upon the de facto complainant and overpowered her for

accomplishing the crime. At the second instance, the petitioner is

alleged to have cunningly taken the de facto complainant to

Parassinikadavu under the pretext that it was for offering prayers for the 2025:KER:50207

fulfilment of their marriage, and managed to have sex with her in a

hotel room. It is not possible to discern from the statements of the de

facto complainant that she had extended consent for sexual intercourse

on both the above occasions.

7. It is true that the de facto complainant has filed an affidavit

stating that she has amicably settled the issue with the petitioner and

that there is no objection in quashing the criminal prosecution against

the petitioner. However, there is absolutely nothing stated in the said

affidavit that the sexual relationship with the petitioner was consensual.

It is well settled that in heinous offences like rape, murder etc., the

prosecution proceedings cannot be quashed, in exercise of the powers

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(in short,

Cr.PC) even though the offenders have managed to win over the victims

and to get the matter compromised with them.

8. 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:50207

"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"

9. 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:50207

10. 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 or settlement as it would be against 2025:KER:50207

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."

11. 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:50207

12. 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