The court ruled that no prima facie case existed against the accused as the victim had attained majority and voluntarily left with him, leading to the quashment of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short ‘Cr.P.C’]has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in S.C.No.92 of 2020 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of offences under the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, Nellore for the offences under Sections 366 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [for short ‘I.P.C.’]and Sections 12 read with 11 and Section 4 read with 3 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2. Heard Sri G.Arun Showri, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms.K.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri G.Rohith, learned counsel representing Sri P.Badrinath, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused would submit that the Petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged. Learned counsel would further submit the statement of the victim shows that she left the house on her own accord and there was no inducement of the Petitioner. It is submitted that the ingredients of the alleged offences do not attract against the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that by the date of alleged offence, the victim attained majority, as such, the ingredients of the alleged offences under POCSO Act also do not attract against the Petitioner. It is submitted that, as per the statement of the victim, she voluntarily left with the Petitioner and the Petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel would submit that, since no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner, continuation of proceedings against him is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner.In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, [(2013) 7 SCC 263].

4. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners and that the victim was a minor by the date of the alleged incident. Learned counsel would further submit that this Court cannot determine the age of the victim at this stage and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be proved during trial. As such, the proceedings against the Petitioner cannot be quashed at the threshold.Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Point for Determination

6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in S.C.No.92 of 2020 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of offences under the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, Nellore, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

Determination by the Court

7. A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A Court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances