The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Rajasthan High Court which had quashed a complaint of sexual assault against one of the teachers who had been accused under the POCSO Act. Referring to the first circumstance, the High Court noted that it was the result of a compromise between the father of the victim and the accused teacher. This earned the utmost disagreement of the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that sexual assault that which occurs in a school environment between a teacher and a minor pupil, is not a dispute capable of settlement even for the complainant by means of cross-bargaining in a compromise agreement. Such crimes may be regarded as individual disagreements, although they have much larger ramifications and are a threat to society.

The Court concluded that quarrels in sexual assault cases are huge institutions and involve the larger public hence, they cannot be settled through non litigation because parties have agreed on settlements. It is not the case of the parties only but of the legal order which concerns law and its enforcement. The Supreme Court stated that the case should have been heard by the High Court to determine if it makes sense to resolve a conflict through a compromise to achieve justice before the case is ordered to be quashed. In the present case, the High Court did not determine properly what was the case about.

The Supreme Court turned down the argument spearheaded by the respondent, which stated that the appellant who is a third party, could not competently challenge an order quashing the FIR. It ruled that the offense was of such nature as enabled the third party to appeal on behalf of society as the accused should be made to stand trial. The High Court was referring to a case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) to justify the quelling of the private disputes, but the Supreme Court explained that the present case was about social damage, so compromise in the context of quelling the dispute was not relevant.