The Supreme Court addressed the quashing of an FIR against a teacher accused of sexual harassment and caste-based abuse of a minor girl. Initially, the High Court of Rajasthan had dismissed the FIR based on a compromise between the accused and the victim’s father, citing the “private” nature of the case and relying on the precedent set by Gian Singh v. State of Punjab. However, the Supreme Court ruled that offenses under the POCSO Act are serious, societal offenses that should not be dismissed purely on the basis of a private settlement. It reinstated the FIR and ordered continuation of criminal proceedings, asserting that crimes against children are public wrongs with a lasting impact on society.

Acts and Sections Discussed

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC)

   • Section 354A: Sexual harassment
   • Section 342: Wrongful confinement
   • Section 509: Word, gesture, or act intended to insult modesty
   • Section 504: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace

2. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012

   • Sections 7 and 8: Sexual assault and associated penalties

3. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

   • Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(b), 3(2)(vii): Offenses committed against members of SC/ST communities with an aggravating factor.

4. Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)

   • Section 482: Inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings.

5. Constitution of India

   • Article 136: Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.
   • Article 32: Right to Constitutional remedies.

1. Initial Allegations and FIR

• On January 8, 2022, an FIR was filed against a teacher (Respondent 3) for sexually harassing a female minor student of SC/ST origin. The complaint, lodged by the victim's father (Respondent 4), cited charges under the IPC, POCSO Act, and SC/ST Act.

2. High Court’s Decision on Compromise

• Respondent 3 and the victim’s father reached a settlement on January 31, 2022. Subsequently, the High Court of Rajasthan quashed the FIR based on this private compromise, ignoring the objection raised by the public prosecutor and prioritizing the settlement’s potential to maintain societal harmony.

3. Appellants’ Challenge to Quashing Order

• The appellants, concerned citizens from the same locality, approached the Supreme Court, contending that quashing the FIR due to a private settlement would undermine justice in cases involving serious societal offenses and may lead to recurrences.

4. Supreme Court’s Rationale and Analysis

• The Supreme Court underscored that sexual assault under the POCSO Act is a grave offense against society. Citing Gian Singh and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, the Court noted that offenses involving moral turpitude and serious societal implications, especially those affecting children, cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.

5. Reinstatement of FIR and Judicial Oversight

• The Court ruled that the quashing of the FIR based on a private settlement was inappropriate, as the High Court failed to adequately consider the severity and public impact of the offenses. The Supreme Court reinstated the FIR, instructing authorities to proceed with the investigation and prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that offenses under the POCSO Act, particularly those involving sexual harassment of minors, are serious societal wrongs that cannot be nullified by private compromise. Such offenses demand judicial scrutiny to uphold justice, protect vulnerable victims, and maintain societal order.

Subjects:

Criminal Law, Sexual Offenses, Protection of Children, Quashing of FIR, POCSO Act

#ChildProtection #SexualHarassment #InherentPowers