‘A Bruised Heart of A Child …’, Says SC Sets Aside Quashing Of Sexual Harassment Case

The Supreme Court stated that the sexual harassment of a kid should be considered a heinous offence and cannot be taken lightly.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Thursday said sexual harassment of a child should be viewed as a heinous and serious offence and cannot be taken lightly as offences of a private nature and, in fact, such offences are bound to be taken as offences against the society.

A bench comprising justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar set aside the decision of the Rajasthan High Court to exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash a sexual harassment case based on a compromise between the accused, a teacher and father of the victim, who was sexually harassed at her school.

The apex court said when an incident of the aforesaid nature and gravity allegedly occurred in a higher secondary school, that, too, from a teacher, it cannot be simply described as an offence which is purely private and has no serious impact on the society.

Justice Ravi Kumar, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, opened the judgment by saying the renowned American poet HW Longfellow penned to the effect that a torn jacket might soon be mended, but a bruised heart of a child would be beyond reviviscence. “Certainly, it contains the gospel truth as relates to a child subjected to sexual assault, be it aggravated or penetrative; or any kind of sexual abuse or exploitation. It is more so, in the case of a female child as it may hound her and hack her family life”, said Justice Ravi Kumar.

The apex court said that rubbing the breast of a child would constitute an offence of ‘sexual assault’ under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years and may extend to five years and also fine. “They would reveal that the commission of such offences against the children should be viewed as heinous and serious. Needless to say, that commission of such offences cannot be taken lightly as offences of private nature and in fact, such offences are bound to be taken as offences against the society”, noted the bench.

Interestingly, the appeal against the High Court order was filed by ordinary men residing in the same tehsil and district to which the father of the victim belongs. They said that the FIR against the accused carries serious allegations of the commission of acts involving offences under various Sections of the IPC, and POCSO Act. The appellants’ said that the offences are not purely private and that they are offences against society. The bench noted that the father of the minor victim and the first respondent state did not choose to challenge the said High Court order passed on February 4, 2022, though it was passed ignoring the opposition of the public prosecutor.

Allowing the appeal, the bench said it has no hesitation to hold that in cases of this nature, the fact that given the compromise entered into between the parties, the chance of a conviction is remote and bleak also cannot be a ground to abruptly terminate the investigation, by quashing FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, by invoking the power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. in the said circumstances.

Justice Ravi Kumar said it is more so when the extracted portion from the complaint that was annexed to the FIR and extracted herein before would reveal that the accused was putting pressure on the father not to lodge any report. “Despite giving such a statement in the complaint, within a couple of weeks, the accused managed to compromise the case with the 4th respondent (father of the minor victim) and his wife”, noted the bench. The bench noted that the victim was then a student of class 11th in the higher secondary aged 16 years.

An FIR was filed on January 8, 2022, and the compromise was entered immediately on January 31, 2022. The bench said, despite the said position, the High Court has not chosen to consider whether the compromise entered into between the parents and the accused could be acted upon or not, in the interest of justice, taking note of the serious allegations levelled against the accused.

“We are at a loss to understand how the High Court arrived at the conclusion that in the case on hand a dispute to be resolved exists between the parties….”, said the bench.

The bench emphasised that in unambiguous terms this court held that before exercising the power under Section 482, Cr. PC, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime besides observing and holding those heinous and serious offences could not be quashed even though a victim or victim’s family and the offender had settled the dispute.

Justice Ravi Kumar said it is disheartening to note that with tooth and nail, the counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, the father of the victim, challenged the appellants’ locus standi to maintain the special leave petition against the impugned order whereunder the FIR registered against the third respondent, the accused was quashed based on the compromise.

The bench said there is no case for the accused and father of the victim to claim that the appellants’ filed the petition due to any private revenge or personal vendetta.

“According to us, such right to a third party to prefer a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is certainly to be recognised and respected in a case where seemingly miscarriage of justice had occurred and still, neither state nor the victim or any relative falling under the term ‘victim’ approached this court”, said the bench.

Concluding the judgment, Justice Ravi Kumar said, “The impugned order of the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the FIR, investigation and criminal proceedings pursuant thereto are subject to the nature of the report to be filed under Section 173(2), Cr. P.C., be proceeded with against the accused, in accordance with law. We make it clear that we shall not be understood to have made any observations on the merits of the case”.