In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that serious crimes, such as sexual harassment, cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a private settlement between the accused and the complainant. Delivered by Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar in Criminal Appeal No. 3403 of 2023 (Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), the decision reinforces that cases impacting public justice and societal values must be prosecuted, even if the victim’s family agrees to a compromise. This decision came after a Rajasthan High Court order that quashed an FIR filed against a teacher accused of sexually harassing a minor student, based on a private settlement between the accused and the victim’s father.
Background of the Case
The case involves allegations against Vimal Kumar Gupta, a teacher, for sexually harassing a minor girl, a student in the 11th grade. On January 8, 2022, the girl’s father lodged FIR No. 6/2022 at Sardar Gangapur City Police Station in Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. The complaint included charges under Sections 354A (sexual harassment), 342 (wrongful confinement), 509 (word, gesture, or act intended to insult modesty), and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIR also included charges under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, as well as Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, due to caste-based slurs reportedly used by Gupta.
According to the FIR, on January 6, 2022, Gupta allegedly approached the girl when she was alone in her classroom. He reportedly patted her cheek, then put his hand inside her bodice and touched her inappropriately. When the girl tried to escape, Gupta followed her, hurling caste-based abuses to intimidate her into silence. Although she sought help from other teachers, they persuaded her to remain quiet about the incident, and even the school principal only took her signature on a blank sheet. Terrified, she eventually confided in her mother, leading to the formal complaint.
High Court Quashes FIR Based on Settlement
Shortly after the FIR was filed, Gupta reportedly reached a private settlement with the girl’s father, who agreed to drop the charges. Gupta subsequently filed a petition with the Rajasthan High Court to quash the FIR on the grounds of this settlement. On February 4, 2022, the High Court granted the petition and dismissed the FIR and all related proceedings. The High Court referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), which allowed quashing of criminal cases on grounds of settlement when they were of a private nature and did not affect public order.
In its decision, the High Court stated that since the offence was “essentially inter se between the parties” and did not impact public peace, it was within the Court’s discretion to quash the FIR and proceedings to promote harmony and resolve the dispute. The public prosecutor objected to the High Court’s decision, but the court nonetheless upheld the private settlement as sufficient grounds for dismissal.
Supreme Court Intervention: Serious Crimes Cannot Be Privatized
The High Court’s decision was challenged in the Supreme Court by two public-minded citizens residing in the same area, Ramji Lal Bairwa and another appellant. They argued that offences under POCSO and caste-based atrocities are not private matters but crimes impacting society. Given the lack of intervention from the state, the appellants contended that they had the locus standi to bring the issue to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s quashing order was inappropriate in light of the nature and gravity of the offenses alleged. Justice Ravikumar stated, “Serious crimes that affect society cannot be reduced to private settlements between parties.” The Court further emphasized that the provisions of the POCSO Act and SC/ST Act were designed to address heinous offenses against children and marginalized communities, and quashing such cases without trial undermines the intent and purpose of these laws.
Important Observations from the Judgment
In its detailed ruling, the Supreme Court addressed two crucial legal questions:
1. Can a third party challenge a quashing order on grounds of compromise in heinous crime cases? The Court affirmed that public-spirited individuals can seek legal recourse in such cases, especially when the state fails to act. The Court underscored that third-party interventions are valid in cases where public justice is at stake, and the state does not pursue the case despite opposition from the public prosecutor.
2. Should the power to quash proceedings based on compromise be applied to serious crimes? The Court highlighted that certain crimes, particularly those involving sexual assault and caste-based abuse, are societal offenses that cannot be privatized. Citing its own ruling in Gian Singh as well as State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, the Court clarified that offenses with significant societal impact, especially against children, cannot be dismissed merely because the parties reached a compromise.
The Court quoted from the Gian Singh case, noting, “The nature and gravity of the crime must guide the Court’s decision to quash criminal proceedings, especially where heinous crimes are concerned.” The ruling emphasized that the judiciary must prioritize public justice and societal interests over private settlements in cases of serious misconduct.
Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court directed that the FIR, investigation, and proceedings against Gupta should continue as per the law. This ruling sends a strong message that compromises cannot be used to evade justice in cases of serious crimes.
