Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Dalveer Singh —Petitioner
versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. —Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No.4504 of 2018
Decided on 3.1.2019
Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 450, 354-D, 384, 376 and Sections 3/4 and 11/12 POCSO Act—Petitioner was charge-sheeted for offences—Petition for quashing charge-sheet on plea that petitioner and prosecutrix has got married and were peacefully settled in married life—Whether charge-sheet and proceedings deserved to be quashed? Yes. (Paras 10 and 11)
Result: Petition allowed.

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Talat Bari with Ms. Monika, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. S. Rajpurohit, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases involving serious offences and a compromise between the parties, the court may invoke its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent harm to the marriage and secure the ends of justice.

Headnote:
POCSO Act - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Section 450, 354-D, 384, 376 IPC and Section 3/4, 11/12 POCSO Act - The court discussed the invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the principles laid down in various judgments to determine the appropriateness of quashing the criminal proceedings in light of the compromise between the parties and the nature of the offences.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner and respondent No. 2 entered into a marriage after the petitioner was charged with offences under Section 450, 354-D, 384, 376 IPC and Section 3/4, 11/12 POCSO Act. The respondent No. 2 voluntarily entered into the marriage and sought to quash the criminal proceedings to avoid harm to their married life.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the invocation of Sections 450, 354-D, 384, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4, 11/12 POCSO Act put the case in a serious legal parameter, and ordinarily, it was not a matter where the court should have interfered under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, considering the compromise between the parties and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court deemed it a fit case for invoking its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed all consequential proceedings.
Issues: The issues involved the appropriateness of quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a case involving serious offences and a compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles laid down in judgments such as Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. to determine that the compromise between the parties and the potential harm to the marriage warranted the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside.

ORDER

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.—The petitioner has preferred this petition claiming following reliefs:-

“It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 5.11.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan and criminal proceedings in Sessions Case No. 46/2018 may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside.”

2. That on 27.3.2016 complainant respondent No. 2 submitted a written report before the SHO Police Station, Mahamandir lodging an FIR alleging therein that the accused petitioner harassed her and compelled her to make friendship and also tried to commit rape upon her while taking video photographs. The FIR was registered and after investigation the chargesheet was filed against the petitioner for offence under Section 450, 354-D, 384, 376 IPC and Section ¾, 11/12 POCSO Act. The charges have been framed and the petitioner has been put to trial under Section 450, 384, 376 Section 3/ 4 and 11/12 of POCSO Act. The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 moved an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. submitting the details of marriage between both the parties and seeking closure of the trial in light of the judgment of Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., 2012 (10) SCC 303: (2012) 4 Crimes 155 and Narendra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. 2014 (6) SCC 466: (2014) 2 Crimes 67 : (2014) 2 Supreme 642. The counsel for the petitioner after submitting details from the record was requested by the Court to call the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in person.

3. Both the parties appeared in person yesterday and were heard at length in the chamber and they are present in the court today also.

4. The facts that have been pleaded and demonstrated by the parties in person is that they entered into a marriage on 19.11.2018 as per the customs. The marriage card and marriage photographs are also on record. The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are living together as husband and wife since 19.11.2018 with the consent of their parents. The petitioner boy is 21 years of age and the girl is 19 years old on this date as accepted by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 upon being asked by this court submitted that she had voluntarily entered into marriage with the petitioner and due to some differences and mis understanding an FIR was lodged. She clearly accepts that it was her voluntary relationship with the petitioner and today when she is major and married to same man she wants to live a happy married life with the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 also informed the court that her parents are happy and have accepted the marriage between her and the petitioner and therefore carrying on the case will have detrimental impact upon the institution of her marriage. Respondent No. 2 yesterday pleaded before this Court in the chamber that she is happy with the petitioner and living a peaceful married life with the consent of their parents and they have amicably settled as husband and wife, therefore, to avoid any harm to their married life FIR may be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments: -

1. Deepak Vs. State of Haryana and Anr in CRMl-M- 31825-2017 (Punjab and Haryana High Court)

2. Sajith S. Vs. State of Kwerala and Ors. in Crime No. 834/2016 (Kerala High Court)

3. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. Mumtaz and Ors. in Criminal Petition No. 200938/2017 (High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench)

4. Asha and Another Vs. State of UP and Anr. (Allahabad High Court).

6. The application preferred by the parties before the learned court below has been rejected only on the ground that the offences are non compoundable. Being plea of the respondent No. 2 before this Court that pendency of these proceedings would hamper the institution of marriage of the respondent No. 2 and may affect the future of their matrimonial life. The petitione

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases involving serious offences and a compromise between the parties, the court may invoke its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent harm to the marriage and secure the ends of justice.

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis