Kerala High Court Rules Settlement in Rape Case Invalid and Contrary to Public Policy

In a plea seeking quashing of a rape case, the Court considered the legality of agreements to settle public offences like murder, rape and atrocities against children.

The Kerala High Court recently decided that an agreement between the complainant and the accused to settle a rape case is invalid because it goes against public policy [Abdul Jaleel v. State of Kerala & Anr].

As a result, Justice A. Badharudeen refused to dismiss the rape case based on the settlement between the victim and the accused.

“Thus it is well settled law that any agreement or contract would be void for the reason that if its consideration is opposed to public policy. In the same manner, contract or agreement for withdrawing from prosecution is nothing but stifling the prosecution involving public offence and the same also is opposed to public policy,” the Court said.

Abdul Jaleel, who was the Assistant Secretary of a Grama Panchayat, allegedly raped the complainant, an employee, on March 13, 2016, after calling her to the office for urgent work.

Initially, the complainant was too afraid to take action, but later sought medical help due to pain. The accused then allegedly promised to marry her and continued to sexually abuse her based on this promise.

A criminal case was eventually filed against Jaleel in 2018. Jaleel, 54, challenged the case in the High Court, claiming that he was falsely accused to extort money from him.

He also presented two agreements between himself and the complainant to support his claim, arguing that even if sexual intercourse occurred, it was consensual.

However, the prosecution maintained that the case could not be dismissed solely based on these agreements.

The Court stated that, at first glance, the 2016 incident could not be considered consensual.

“Therefore, this is a matter where trial is necessary so as to permit the prosecution to adduce evidence,” it said.

The Court also considered the legality of the agreements between the accused and complainant.

“Having gone through Annexures A4 and A5 agreements placed to support the settlement in between the defacto complainant and the accused, the same are intended for stifling the prosecution in a serious offence of rape. Therefore, the same are illegal and cannot be considered as the sole basis to quash the proceedings,” it said while dismissing the plea.

Advocates A Ranjith Narayanan and A Simi represented the accused.

Public Prosecutor MP Prasanth appeared for the State.

The complainant was represented by advocate KK Razia.