Kerala High Court
Pranav Pradeep vs State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2025
2025:KER:73310
Crl.M.C.No.7603/2025
-: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. 7603 OF 2025
CRIME NO.197/2025 OF DHARMADAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
PRANAV PRADEEP
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O PRADEEP, CHIRAKKUNI,
KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA.,
PIN - 670661
BY ADV SRI.D.ARUN BOSE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
DHARMODAM POLICE STATION,
DHARMODAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.,
PIN - 670106
3 ATHEENA RAJEESH
AGED 21 YEARS
D/O RAJEESH, KUNNUMAL HOUSE,
MATTANUR, KANNUR,
KERALA.,
PIN - 670702
BY ADVS. SRI.K.VISWAN
SMT.P.S.POOJA
2025:KER:73310
Crl.M.C.No.7603/2025
-:2:-
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:73310
Crl.M.C.No.7603/2025
-:3:-
ORDER
The accused in Crime No.197/2025 of the Dharmadam Police
Station, Kannur, has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, 'BNSS'), with a prayer to quash
the First Information Report registered in the aforesaid crime and the
further proceedings initiated against him. The offences alleged against
him are under Sections 143(1), 75(1), 64(1), 64(2)(m) & 69 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The prosecution case is that from 19.02.2025 onwards, the
petitioner resorted to sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant by
giving a false promise of marriage. It is stated that the petitioner
continued such acts on various dates up to 28.03.2025. On 28.03.2025,
the petitioner is alleged to have resorted to forceful sexual intercourse
with the de facto complainant, ignoring her resistance.
3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the
issue has been amicably settled, and hence it is highly necessary to
terminate the prosecution proceedings against him.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor
representing the State of Kerala.
2025:KER:73310
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on an
affidavit sworn by the de facto complainant on 19.07.2025, wherein it is
stated that she had settled the issue with the accused, and hence she is
having no grievance against him. It is further stated in the aforesaid
affidavit that the de facto complainant is ready to give a statement to the
Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS to the effect that the issue with
the accused has been amicably settled, and that she has no subsisting
grievance.
6. It is well settled that in heinous offences like rape and POCSO
crimes, it is not possible to wind up the prosecution proceedings on the
basis of the compromise between the accused and the victim.
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
2025:KER:73310
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 really be
thought of, and those offences are crimes against the body of a woman
2025:KER:73310
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 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
2025:KER:73310
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 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
2025:KER:73310
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.
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.
2025:KER:73310
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. However, it is made
clear that the dismissal of this petition would in no way fetter the
Investigating Agency from filing a refer report, if it is ultimately found that
the offence of rape was not attracted in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
(Sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST/06.10.25
2025:KER:73310
APPENDIX
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.197
OF 2025 0F DHARMADOM POLICE STATION, KANNUR
DATED 07.04.2025.
ANNEXURE 2 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE
DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/3RD RESPONDENT DATED
13.08.2024.
