Analysis of Supreme Court Judgment in Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 3403 of 2023 (2024 INSC 846), dealt with significant questions of law concerning the quashing of an FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in a case involving allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and other statutes. The case provides critical insights into the interplay between individual settlements and the broader societal impact of heinous crimes.
Facts of the Case
The case originated from an FIR filed on January 8, 2022, by the father of a 16-year-old victim, alleging that a teacher had sexually assaulted his daughter. The allegations included patting her cheeks and rubbing her breasts, amounting to sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. The accused also hurled caste-based abuses, invoking provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
Subsequently, the accused compromised the matter with the victim’s father. Relying on this settlement, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings, citing the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], which permits quashing criminal proceedings in private disputes if it serves justice.
Issues for Consideration
- Locus Standi: Could third parties challenge the High Court’s quashing order under Article 136 of the Constitution?
- Extent of Section 482, Cr.P.C.: Can heinous offences with societal impact be quashed solely based on a compromise between the victim and the accused?
Supreme Court’s Observations
1. Locus Standi of the Appellants:
The Court held that private citizens could challenge quashing orders in cases involving heinous crimes. Crimes under the POCSO Act are not merely private wrongs but societal offences. The appellants, as public-spirited individuals, had standing to seek justice.
The Court referenced decisions such as P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam [(1980) 3 SCC 141] and Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai [(2003) 12 SCC 395], emphasizing that where miscarriage of justice is evident, even third parties may invoke the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136.
2. Misapplication of Section 482, Cr.P.C.:
The Court criticized the High Court for misapplying Gian Singh’s principles. While Gian Singh allowed quashing in private disputes, it explicitly barred such relief in cases of heinous crimes or offences impacting societal well-being. The Court reiterated that:
- Heinous offences like sexual assault under the POCSO Act have profound societal repercussions.
- Settlements in such cases undermine deterrence and public confidence in the justice system.
The Court also highlighted the legislative intent behind the POCSO Act, which was enacted to provide stringent safeguards against child sexual abuse.
3. Role of the State and Public Prosecutor:
The Court noted that the public prosecutor opposed the quashing in the High Court, emphasizing the need to pursue the matter to trial. The High Court’s disregard for this opposition and failure to consider the gravity of the offence was a significant lapse.
Judgment and Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order quashing the FIR. It directed the investigation and trial to proceed in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the allegations but only on the impropriety of quashing proceedings in such cases.
Conclusion:
This judgment reinforces that crimes under the POCSO Act and similar statutes are not merely personal disputes but societal wrongs. Courts must exercise caution and prioritize societal interests over individual settlements when dealing with heinous offences. This landmark decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding justice and societal welfare.