Kerala High Court
Xxxxxx vs State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2025
2025:KER:73483
Crl.M.C.No.7610/2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 14TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 7610 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1041/2019 OF Vellarada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
SC NO.1580 OF 2021 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/IST
ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SREEJITH S. NAIR
SHRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.SATHEESH MOHANAN
SMT.MAHIMA
RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
3 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
2025:KER:73483
Crl.M.C.No.7610/2025
2
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:73483
Crl.M.C.No.7610/2025
3
ORDER
The defacto complainant in Crime No.1041/2019 of Vellarada Police
Station, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this petition to quash the proceedings
against the accused in the said case. The offences alleged against the
accused are under Sections 506(i) and 376 IPC r/w Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
2. The allegation is that the first accused committed rape upon the
defacto complainant/petitioner on 06.09.2019 at her residence with the
assistance of the second accused, who is none other than the mother of the
victim.
3. After the completion of the investigation, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Neyyattinkara, has filed a Final Report alleging the
commission of the aforesaid offences by the accused.
4. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that she
has already settled the issues with the accused and hence, the prosecution
proceedings against the accused are to be quashed. She has also sworn an
affidavit to the effect that the issues with the second accused, who is her
mother, were the actual cause of the complaint which she had preferred
2025:KER:73483
4
before the Investigating Agency, alleging the commission of the aforesaid
offences by the accused. It is further stated that the entire issues with the
accused have been amicably settled, and hence it is necessary to terminate
the prosecution proceedings against him.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
6. Having regard to the nature of allegations levelled against the
accused, it is not possible to wind up the prosecution proceedings against the
accused on the basis of the settlement of issues between the parties. It is
well settled that the compromise between the victim and the accused, cannot
be a reason for quashing the proceedings in heinous offences like rape and
POCSO offences.
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:73483
5
"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.
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
2025:KER:73483
6
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 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
2025:KER:73483
7
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."
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
2025:KER:73483
8
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 offenders succeeded in
winning over the victims or their relatives by inducement or threat.
2025:KER:73483
9
13. As far as the present case is concerned, the prayer of the
petitioner to quash the proceedings against the accused by acting upon her
statement 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. Having regard to the fact that the crime involved in this case is of
the year 2019, the Trial Court shall take every endeavour to dispose of the
case at the earliest.
The Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly.
sd/
G. GIRISH
JUDGE
jm/
