Bhuvana Marni
Published on: October 3, 2022 at 18:49 IST
The Supreme Court said that it will investigate whether a High Court can quash a sexual harassment case based on an agreement between the accuser and the victim when using its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
To assist the court, Senior Attorney and former Kerala High Court Judge R Basant was designated as Amicus Curiae by a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justice JB Pardiwala.
According to the petitioner, a girl student who was around 15 years old was offended by her teacher’s lack of modesty in an event that happened on January 6, 2022. The girl’s father then filed an FIR as a result of this.
However, the suspect identified in the FIR who was in question was never detained.
According to the petitioner, an agreement reached between the accused and the girls’ families served as the foundation for the accused to file a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The High Court granted the accused’s plea and halted the proceedings based on the compromise laid up for the court’s consideration.
Despite the Public Prosecutor’s resistance, as noted in the High Court’s order, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in Gian Singh Anand vs. State of Punjab, which held that even in non-compoundable offences, the court’s procedures must be followed and can be invoked to have the proceedings quashed on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties.
A third party petitioned the Supreme Court under Article 32 to contest the High Court’s ruling.
The petitioners are inhabitants of the community where the alleged crime against the youngster is said to have occurred, the petitioner’s attorney explained at the opening.
The petitioner’s locus standi was the main matter the court addressed during today’s sessions.
CJI Lalit remarked–
“A locus is a concept that is different and is placed on a different pedestal in civil law or other laws. The situation must genuinely have a different meaning in criminal law. Imagine a case where the then-chief minister was exonerated by the High Court and the State of Bihar, where the CBI was conducting the investigation, filed an appeal.”
“Despite the fact that the offence was committed in the State of Bihar, a bench of three justices in this court ruled that the State of Bihar lacked jurisdiction to maintain an appeal. Why? Because the CBI, the investigating agency, has the exclusive authority under the law to maintain the appeal.”
“…the locus in criminal law has a fundamentally different meaning because it suggests that someone’s liberty might be jeopardized. Therefore, whose instance do we enter in when you are pushing for this kind of elasticity?”
The offence was societal and was acknowledged by the court.
The petitioner also contended that the State of Rajasthan should have appeared before the court but failed to do so, necessitating his or her appearance before the court in the general public’s interest. The bench examined the court’s actions in response to the petition.
CJI Lalit enquired–
“Does the CrPC grant us any authority to act spontaneously? The High Court is able. You are aware that Bombay High Court did it in one of those cases, when a defendant was first sentenced to six months in prison, but Bombay High Court took suo moto cognizance and enhanced the sentence to three years.”
“We are having trouble figuring out whose request we can fulfil. Do we carry it out on our own initiative or at someone else’s request? We don’t disagree with what you have to say about the situation or its merits.”
Accordingly, the bench passed the following order–
“This petition submits that an offence which was otherwise punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and the provisions of the POCSO Act and which by very nature is against the society and non-compoundable was allowed to be quashed by an order passed by the High Court.”
“It is further submitted that the State of Rajasthan, the guardian of the interest of the persons living in the state, has chosen not to appeal against the said decision of the High Court. It is in these circumstances that the instant petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed before us.”
“Apart from the issues touching the merits of the matter and whether a power under Section 482 of the code was rightly exercised, the matter also raises issues concerning the locus of the present petitioner to maintain and seek the relief as prayed for.”
“The original accused as well as the father of victim be made party to the instant proceedings. Issue notice returnable on 31 October 2022. Considering the importance of the issues involved in the matter, we request Mr. R. Basant to be the amicus curiae in the matter.”
Title: Ramji Lal Bairwa And Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.
