E-Paper
SC says ‘compromise’ can't be basis for dismissal of sexual harassment case
Delivering the verdict, the SC set aside the Rajasthan HC order which exercised its power under a section of CrPC to quash one such sexual harassment case.
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a sexual harassment case cannot be dismissed on the basis of a 'compromise' reached between the accused and the complainant.
The top court bench of justices CT Ravikumar and PV Sanjay Kumar set aside a decision of the Rajasthan High Court to quash one such sexual harassment case, Bar and Bench reported.
What top court said
"The impugned order is quashed and set aside, FIR and criminal proceedings be proceeded with in accordance with law. We have not commented on the merits of the matter," the SC was quoted as saying.
The verdict, reserved in October 2023 questioned whether a High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash a sexual harassment case on the basis of a compromise agreement between the accused and the complainant.
What was the case
The case pertains to the sexual harassment of a 15-year-old girl, whose father filed a complaint with the police, leading to the registration of a first information report (FIR) under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The minor girl had accused a government school teacher, Vimal Kumar Gupta, for sexual harassment, an NDTV report said.
Reportedly, a compromise was reached between the girl's family and the accused, wherein the latter said that they registered a complaint due to a misunderstanding and no longer wished for any action to be taken against Gupta. Based on this agreement, the accused moved the Rajasthan High Court for dismissal of the case. Subsequently, the HC considered and accepted the plea, quashing the criminal case.
ALSO READ | SC orders compensation for all sexual assault survivors
Plea in SC
One Ramji Lal Bairwa, an unaffected third party, had filed a petition before the top court and objected to the High Court order.
Though the Supreme Court initially observed that an unaffected party cannot file a plea in a criminal case, it eventually decided to examine the issue.
The apex court ordered for the victim's father and the accused to be made a party to the case.
This order from the Supreme Court comes just a day after -- in another judgment -- it directed all the trial courts to order financial compensation for women and child survivors of sexual assault cases while convicting or acquitting the accused.
A bench led by justice BV Nagarathna held that the compensation payable to the victims under Section 357A of the CrPC, now replaced by Section 396 of BNSS, and rules framed under the POCSO Act is to be made on top of any other fine imposed on the accused as punishment in case of conviction.
