Apex court lens on Rajasthan High Court’s closure of sexual assault case on schoolgirl

JAIPUR: The Supreme Court will examine Rajasthan High Court’s closure of a case involving the alleged molestation of a 15-year-old girl at a school after a compromise was reached between the girl’s family and the accused.
The apex court issued notices to Rajasthan government and its DGP on a PIL filed by one Ramjilal Bairwa, a native of Gangapur in the state, challenging the closure by the high court of such a serious, non-compoundable criminal case, in which the accused was not arrested.
An SC bench comprising Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice JB Pardiwala appointed senior advocate R Basant as amicus curiae to assist in dealing with the case, which gave rise to many legal issues such as the validity and scope of compromise in “non-compoundable” cases of a serious nature.
The bench also said it will have to deal with the legal issue of locus whether in a criminal case a court can allow public interest litigations to be used to challenge the findings of courts by a third party. The SC also ordered that the accused and the father of the victim minor girl be made parties and listed the plea for hearing on October 31.
As per the plea, the modesty of a 15-year-old girl student was allegedly outraged on January 6, leading to the registration of an FIR by her father. The accused named in the FIR was not arrested and a compromise was executed between the girl’s family and the accused, it said.
“Taking note of the compromise presented before it, the high court allowed the petition filed by the accused and quashed the proceedings,” the apex court said, noting the contention of the PIL petitioner.
“This petition submits that an offence that was otherwise punishable under Section 354 (outraging the modesty) of IPC and the provisions of the POCSO Act and which by its very nature is against society and is non-compoundable was allowed to be quashed as a result of the of the order of the high court,” it said.
The PIL further submitted that the Rajasthan state government, which is “the guardian of the interests of persons living in the state,” decided not to appeal against the decision of the high court.