The bench of Chief justice UU Lalit and Justice JB Pardiwala appointed Senior Advocate R. Basant as Amicus Curiae in a matter wherein a challenge was made to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court exercising its power under section 482 CRPC for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, against a person accused of outraging the modesty of a minor girl.

Justice Farjand Ali of Rajasthan High Court had quashed an FIR lodged under sections 354-A, 342, 509 & 504of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (Amended) Act, Section 3(1)(r),3(1)(s), 3(1)(b) & 3(2) (vii) of Schedule Cast and Schedule Tribe(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 relying on the judgment of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.

The Supreme court had held in the case of Gian Singh that "if it is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the same by exercising the inherent powers vested in it. It is observed that insuch cases, the prosecution becomes the lame prosecution and pursuing such a lame prosecution would be a waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace" 

The High Court thus held "This court is aptly guided by the principles propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and feels that whether dispute is essentially inter se between the parties, either they are relatives, neighbours or having business relationship and which does not affect the society at large, then in such cases, with a view to maintain harmonious relationships between the two sides& for restitution of relationship and with a view to end-up the dispute in between them permanently, the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR and all other subsequent proceedings initiated thereto."

It was argued by the advocate appearing for the petitioner that in an incident occurred on 06.01.2022 and modesty of a girl student aged about 15 years was outraged by a School Teacher Vimal Kumar Gupta and FIR was lodged by her father. The accused was never arrested.

Chief Justice Lalit observed that "The concept of locus in civil law or other laws is something different, it is at a different pedestal. In criminal law, the matter has to actually have a different connotation. Imagine the judgement where the then Chief Minister was acquitted by the High Court and an appeal was preferred by the State of Bihar, where the investigation was carried on by CBI. This court, a bench of three judges said that the State of Bihar, though the offence was committed in State of Bihar, did not have jurisdiction to maintain an appeal. Why? Because under law it is only the prerogative of CBI, the investigative agency, to maintain the appeal. Now we have gone to that extent and said that in criminal law the locus has a very different connotation because it has the implication that perhaps someone's liberty will be put to prejudice. Therefore this kind of elasticity, that you are advocating for...at whose instance do we go in?" 

"Is there a power under CRPC that we can take suo-moto action? The High Court can. You know it was done by Bombay High Court in one of those cases– where a person was granted imprisonment for six months but Bombay High Court took suo moto cognizance in revision and increased punishment to 3 years. We are struggling with the point that at whose instance can we do this? o we do it on suo moto or do we do it at the instance of somebody? What you are saying about the incident, the merits of the matter, we are not questioning that." said Justice Lalit.

Lastly the bench ordered "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 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 the 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."

Case Details:-

Writ Petition (Crl) No. 253/2022

Ramji Lal Bairwa And Anr.   ...Petitioner

Vs.

State of Rajasthan And Anr.   ...Respondent