Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2024 (SC) 865
Facts: The Court heard a plea filed by the third party/appellant to the criminal proceedings who challenged the High Court's decision contending that heinous crimes, especially those involving minors and sexual offenses, cannot be treated as private matters eligible for compromise-based quashing. The allegation against the teacher was that he rubbed the breasts of the minor child in nobody's presence in the classroom. The victim was threatened to keep it a secret Anyhow, the FIR was lodged against the teacher under IPC, including the provisions of the POCSO Act and SC/ST Act. However, a compromise was reached between the teacher and the victim's family, leading to the quashing of the FIR by the Rajasthan High Court. Aggrieved by the quashing of the FIR, the appellant-ordinary village men approached the Supreme Court.
Issue:Whether Sexual Assault Under POCSO Can Be Quashed Based On 'Compromise’? Whether a third party have the right to appeal against the quashing in sexual offence case,without having locus standi in the case
Observation: The Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court's decision which quashed the 'sexual assault' complaint against a teacher (accused of rubbing the victim's breast). The High Court had quashed the matter based on a 'compromise' between the victim's father and teacher. Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar observed that matters related to sexual assault cannot be treated as private matters eligible for compromise-based quashing. The Court emphasized the societal impact of such crimes and mandated that proceedings continue in the interest of justice. It was held that Obviously, rubbing the breast of a child would constitute an offence of 'sexual assault' under Section 7 of POCSO Act, punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years and may extend to five years and also fine. They would reveal that the commission of such offences against the children should be viewed as heinous and serious. The Court also rejected the respondent's argument that the third person/appellant had no locus standi to challenge the quashing of FIR as they were not part of the criminal proceedings.
Thus, The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's order and directing that criminal proceedings against the accused continue.
