+917604047601
On November 7, 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment in a case involving a minor’s sexual harassment complaint. The Court set aside a Rajasthan High Court order that had quashed the case based on a compromise between the accused and the survivor’s family. A Bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and PV Sanjay Kumar made it clear that compromise cannot nullify charges in cases of serious crimes like sexual harassment.
Let’s dive deeper into this case and the broader implications of the judgement.
Introduction
The Supreme Court recently dealt with an obscure matter regarding the outright dismissal of sexual harassment allegations following a compromise. This judgement arising out of a recent order of the Rajasthan High Court to discharge an accused involved in sexually harassing a minor highlights the Court’s approach towards other comparable crimes such as sexual harassment and the manner in which compromise operates in criminal law.
What is sexual harassment?
Sexual harassment is any and all forms of sexual conduct that discomfort the recipient violating their density and making them feel demeaned, threatened, or molested. It is a grave violation especially in the line of duty, recreational centre, and in social relations, physically, emotionally, and psychologically. According to the legal frameworks in use in different countries, including India’s legal system, sexual harassment is a criminal and legal remedy is drawn up to protect individuals, especially children.
The present case
In this case, the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Rajasthan High Court that came to dismiss the sexual harassment complaint filed against the accused. The Rajasthan High Court initially dismissed the FIR because a compromise was reached between the accused and the survivor's family members. But the Supreme Court noted that such compromises cannot be entertained in cases of sexual harassment especially where the victim is a minor because the act is a serious offence and in the interest of the public.
Background of the case
This case arose from an alleged complaint by the father of a 15 year old girl alleging harassment by an accused. After this, an FIR was registered and the accused were prosecuted criminally. However, the accused wanted to conclude the case and make some monetary settlement with the girl's side of the family. This compromise was also endorsed by the Rajasthan High Court by dismissing the case and such a decision was further challenged by Ramji Lal Bairwa, an unconnected third party in the Supreme Court.
Facts of the case
-
The case concerned an alleged harassment of a 15-year-old girl for which her father lodged an FIR.
-
Eventually, a compromise was reached between the accused and the survivor’s family where the accused filed a petition to quash the FIR.
-
The Rajasthan High Court agreed to this compromise and struck off the case.
-
This was not well taken with the High Court, an unaffected third party by the name Ramji Lal Bairwa filed a petition at the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision.
Key issues
The dispute that went before the Supreme Court of India was whether a High Court can dismiss a sexual harassment case due to a compromise arrived at between the accused and the complainant’s family when the complainant is a minor.
Judgment
The Supreme Court quashed the impugned order passed by the Rajasthan High Court and held that when a person is involved in a serious offence like sexual harassment especially if the victim is minor, mere settling of the matters between the parties does not satisfy the requirements of quashing of proceedings. The Court stressed that criminal actions must proceed in accordance with legal procedures because the crime’s nature requires it, not to mention the interest of society in preventing such incidents. The Court appreciated the effort of the Amicus Curiae R Basant who helped the Court in the development of the legal opinions which were submitted and further clarified that no opinion about the merits of the case was expressed by the judgement.
Critical analysis
The Supreme Court’s judgement underscores a critical principle in criminal law: Some of the offences cannot be settled out of court because they are wrong against society. Sexual harassment particularly involving minor personage is not an argument that can be ‘settled’ because it has serious ramifications for life and society. The Supreme Court’s decision has maintained a notion that the High Court’s dismissal based on compromise is a wrong approach for criminal offences, especially those related to children.
This judgement serves to establish that even if two parties have come together to negotiate their differences or come to a compromise then the law will not allow for serious crimes to go unpunished with decent legal proceedings.
Conclusion
The case under consideration can be discussed as one illustrating the role of the Supreme Court and the judiciary as a whole in the protection of the victims of crime such as sexual harassment; protecting minors in particular. Although the Court has the rationality of preventing compromise-based dismissals in circumstances such as those touching on severe criminal conduct, it sustains justice’s significance. This ruling is not only to safeguard the sanctity of criminal trials but also to vindicate the principle that if public interest enjoys primacy in heinous crimes, then, nothing should be allowed to impede the prevention of such incidents in the future.
Frequently asked questions
Is it possible to quash a sexual harassment case if the victim agrees to withdraw it?
In most cases the answer is no, sexual harassment is a serious offense that affects the public interest most of the time it involves vulnerable persons. Agreement between parties does not exclude the criminal nature of the act, and judges will not release such cases based on mutual consent.
What makes the court not accept compromises in some of the criminal cases?
In cases of severe lawful offences, the court does not allow compromises to protect the public interest and provide checks. The crimes like sexual harassment, assault, or domestic violence are considered to be an offense against society rather than separate individuals; thus, compromising such cases can lead to a negative trend.
What is the meaning of Section 482 CrPC, and how does it pertain to the quashing of the cases?
CrPC Section 482 empowers High Courts to quash cases to check abuse of the process of the court. However, when it comes to notorious offences, the court is careful and restricts its sovereignty so as to serve justice and protect the public.
Amicus Curiae undertake what function in relation to court cases?
An Amicus Curiae, or ‘friend of the court’ is a person appointed by the court to give an independent opinion as to a particular aspect of the case. They give direction in contentious matters and assist in the cause and effect determination of a balanced evaluation.
Are petitions allowed in persons or cases not implicated in the crime charged?
As a rule, petitions in criminal matters are not admissible in cases where a third party has not themselves been personally affected by the matter. But if a cause involves the public interest or an important principle, then the courts may entertain such applications so as to make justice prevail and enforce the law.
This case once again makes us understand how some serious offense such as sexual harassment should be handled as per the seriousness of the crime and makes us appreciate the Judiciary arm of the government, especially on its stands for vulnerable individuals. The given verdict by the Supreme Court is useful as it provides an example of discharging social responsibility rather than the desire of two individuals to resolve the problem on their own.
Hopefully, you’ll never have to face sexual harassment or assault, but if you do, you must remember that you’re not the only one, and assistance is out there. Consulting a lawyer or using other free legal assistance services will help to clarify what action you can legally take at the moment.
Share on
×