Moa Jamir
Despite being ‘well-settled’ by the Supreme Court of India that a “compromise deed/agreement” entered different parties on matters concerning ‘grave and serious offences,’ often such cases continue to reach the court of law, particularly in Nagaland.
The apex court has further laid down that in the exercise of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which among others, gives the High Court the powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it, must give due regard to the ‘nature and gravity of the offence.’
Accordingly, the Supreme Court has consistently held that ‘rape, dacoity and murder etc are serious offences involving mental depravity and the same are not private in nature and they have serious impact upon society” and ‘cannot be quashed based on a compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or the victim.’
However, such rulings do not seem to deter people from petitioning (Criminal Revision) the high court in the state under Sec 482 of CrPC, though the nature of the crime allegedly committed falls under the offences stipulated by the apex court.
In 2022 alone, there were at least 3 such cases so far – two involving alleged sexual assault on minors falling under the relevant section of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act and one under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 for physical assault of a minor.
In all the cases, the Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench has rejected the pleas, by citing among others, the nature of the alleged crime and the age of the victims.
When the offences are grave and the allegation is of an attempt to rape a minor, such allegation and criminal proceeding cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise entered into between the families of the victim and accused, the Bench observed in the judgement on March 24. Besides, for sexual offences “involving a minor, the parents, in the considered opinion of this court, cannot give consent on behalf of the minor to compromise such serious offences,” it added.
On August 10, another Bench reiterated that ‘compromise agreement’ in cases involving serious offences cannot be the basis for quashing an FIR relating to alleged physical assault of a minor among others, relying on consistent positions held by the Supreme Court that “rape, dacoity and murder are serious offences...”
Likewise, on September 6, a single-bench judge also refused to quash and set aside a First Information Report (FIR) and proceedings against a couple accused of physically assaulting a five-year-old minor girl in Kohima. Heinous and serious offences “shock the conscience of the society and be strongly condemned,” the Judge stated in his ruling, further citing the apex court observation highlighted in the two previous judgments.
Constant recourse to ‘compromise,’ on one hand, is symptomatic of how many issues are ‘settled’ amicably via customary or other informal mechanisms in the State. In minor civil or criminal cases, perhaps the existence of such mechanisms helps in ‘unburdening’ the court of law and avoiding lengthy legal procedures and costs.
On the other hand, however, regular application of such ‘compromise’ in serious offences reflects how ‘seriously’ the rule of law is being perceived or practised by the citizens, either deliberately or unwittingly. While the High Court has rightly intervened and dismissed the plea petitions based on the ‘compromise’ formula, the right legal knowledge and awareness are pertinent to act as deterrence and preventing, the commission of such offences as well as undertaking subsequent action undermining the rule of law.
For any comments, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
