IMPORTANT POINT
Offences under POCSO Act cannot be compounded.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.—The complainant respondent No. 2 herein, who is the father of the victim has registered an FIR, being FIR No. 105 dated 15.12.2021 for the offences under Section 365 IPC, whereby he has given a report about her missing daughter, who was said to be found missing w.e.f. 14.12.2021. He has submitted, that despite of the best efforts made by him, the victim could not be recovered, nor her whereabouts were known to the complaint.

2. Admittedly, in the FIR it reflects, that the age of the victim, as it was declared by the complainant was 16 years. The matter was put to investigation and a Chargesheet, being Chargesheet No. 4 of 2022 has been submitted, whereby the present applicant has been named in the Chargesheet, on the basis of the statement of the victim. As a consequence thereto it has resulted into introduction of the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

3. What is important here is that the introduction of the aforesaid offences as per the observations which has been made by the Investigating Officer in his report, is that it was on the statement of the victim, when she was recovered, the aforesaid offences were introduced to have been commissioned by the present applicant Abhishek Rana. The relevant part of the Chargesheet is extracted hereunder:—

“(Matter in Other Language)”

4. At the first available incidence, when the victim has recorded her statement before the Investigating Officer and in her statement under Section 161 of CrPC, she has submitted that she was misguided by the present applicant and she was taken to a hotel, where a physical relationship was established.

5. Based on the aforesaid Chargesheet, the summoning order has been issued. As a consequence thereto, the proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2022, State Vs. Abhishek Rana, was put to motion before the Court of Special Judge/POCSO/FTC/ Additional District & Sessions Judge, Haldwani, district Nainital, in which the present applicant has been summoned vide order dated 02.02.2022.

6. During the pendency of the present C482 Application, a Compounding Application has been preferred under the joint signatures of the complainant and the applicant herein, which was duly supported by their respective affidavits and the only solitary ground, which has been given by the signatories to the compounding application is contained in para 7, that since they have settled their dispute amicably with the intervention of some elderly persons, the matter may be compounded.

7. The nature of offence, for which the present applicant has been summoned to be tried are serious social offences, which may have a wider social repercussion in the society. Apart from the fact, that it is not compoundable under Section 320 of CrPC, hence, for composition of a serious social offence, there has had to be a genuine and valid reason which has to be deciphered in the compounding application for seeking a composition of offence under Section 320 of CrPC, which is not justified by the pleadings raised in para 7.

8. The learned counsels for the parties standing in support of the Compounding Application, has remarkably referred to the statement of PW1, as recorded before the Special Sessions Judge on 18.04.2022. Two excerpts of the statement are important to be extracted herein as contained in para 9 and 10, wherein she has made a statement that no physical relationship was established, secondly, that she was not arrested on 16.12.2021.

“(Matter in Other Language)”

9. Further, if her statement as recorded in para 12 is taken into consideration, she had made a statement that she was medically examined and the medical report paper No. 13 ka/1 was signed by her and was placed on record before the Sessions Court proceedings. But, however, later on she was declared as to be hostile.

10. Another statement, which has been recorded by her on 18.04.2022, which would be of much relevance in order to have a cor