Point of law : Power under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., may be exercised only where the parties have settled their dispute and the same also depends upon the facts of each case. It is also held that before exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and social impact.

ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent-State.

2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in Special Case POCSO No.43/2019 pending on the file of II-Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Vijayapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and Sections 12, 5(L), 5(J)(II) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO’ Act).

3. Factual matrix of the case is that petitioner No.1/accused committed rape on the minor girl-petitioner No.2 herein in the guise of loving her. As a result, she became pregnant and thereafter, he kidnapped the victim and took her to Kolhapur. Hence, the complainant lodged complaint against accused/petitioner No.1. The police after conducting investigation has filed charge sheet for the above offences.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1/accused and petitioner No.2/victim have married and they have child. He has also produced document viz., birth certificate of child born out of their cohabitation. Petitioner No.1 is in custody. The victim who has been examined before the Court has not supported the case of the prosecution and she has turned hostile. No purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings against the accused when the victim herself has turned hostile. Hence, he prays for quashing the proceedings initiated against the accused.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Vijaya Kumar vs. State by Madanayakanahally P.S., and another reported in 2020(3) KCCR 2419, wherein this Court held that though the offences are punishable under Section 376 of IPC and the provisions of POCSO Act, since the parties have settled the dispute and accused and victim are living together, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., needs to be allowed and the proceedings has to be quashed.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent-State would submit that the offences committed by the accused are heinous offences and the charges levelled against the accused are serious in nature. The accused committed rape on victim/petitioner No.2 and as a result, she became pregnant. Thereafter, child was born to her. Since the offences committed by the accused are heinous offences, the Court cannot exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent-State and perused the material on record. Petitioner No.2 herein was minor at the time of incident. No doubt, the petition is filed by the accused and victim seeking to quash the proceedings and the defacto complainant is arrayed as respondent No.2. This Court while passing an order in the order referred to supra has taken note of the principles laid down in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and came to conclusion that since the victim and the accused have married and they are having good family and the parties have compromised the matter, proceedings has to be quashed. But this consideration is against the principles laid down in the judgment in Gian Singh’s case supra and the same cannot be a basis for exercising the discretion to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh’s case has held that in serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the proceedings cannot be quashed, even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute,