On December 2, the Supreme Court transformed a writ petition filed under Article 32 into a Special Leave Petition filed under Article 136 to examine the legality of a High Court order that dismissed a case against a teacher for alleged molestation against a student due to a compromise with the family.
A writ petition filed by a third party asserting that the High Court permitted the quashing of the criminal case against the government school teacher based on compromise was being considered by a bench made up of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi.
The father of the victimized girl filed an FIR against the teacher in accordance with various provisions of the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code. Due to the police’s prolonged inaction, the complainant and the accused reached a compromise in which the complainant stated that he did not want the case against the accused to proceed. The complainant went on to say that the complaint was made as a result of the confusion that the villagers had caused.
The accused teacher petitioned the High Court of Rajasthan for the quashing of the FIR in accordance with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the agreement. The High Court granted the petition of the accused and dismissed the case against him based on the compromise.
The Public Prosecutor had objected to the High Court’s order, but the High Court had relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court noted in its notice. The Court had stated in a previous order issued on September 30 that the petitioner’s locus will also need to be taken into consideration.
This petitioner claimed that the High Court had thus quashed an offense that is otherwise punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and under the terms of the POCSO Act, which by its very nature is against society and non-compoundable. It was further argued that the State of Rajasthan, which serves as the guardian of the interests of its residents, has decided not to appeal the High Court’s aforementioned ruling.
The petitioner had asked the Supreme Court to request the records for review and to overturn the High Court’s challenged decision.
The bench gave notice in the case on October 30 and, taking into account the significance of the issues raised, named Senior Advocate R. Basant as Amicus Curiae. He is supported by Advocate On Record Aviral Saxena. The matter will be heard again by the bench on January 20, 2023.
News Mania Desk
