Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Samit Gopal, J.
Sanjeev Kumar – Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. And Others – Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. - 9169 of 2024
Decided On : 02-04-2024
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Proceedings - Sections 376, 313 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act - 375 Sixthly of IPC - Special Statute - Compromise - Prosecution cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise - Age of victim - Consent of minor prosecutrix immaterial - Offences involving heinous and serious offences cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise - Quashing of FIR on the ground of settlement - Nature and gravity of the offence - Crimes against the body of a woman cannot be compromised - High Court's power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the impugned cognizance order and charge sheet filed against him under Sections 376, 313 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act. The applicant argued that a compromise had been entered into between the parties subsequent to the lodging of the FIR, conclusion of investigation, and summoning by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, especially in cases involving heinous and serious offences. The court emphasized that the consent of the minor prosecutrix is immaterial, and the offences under the POCSO Act, 2012, being a Special Statute, cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. The court also highlighted the nature and gravity of the offence, stating that crimes against the body of a woman cannot be compromised.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution could be quashed on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties subsequent to the lodging of the FIR, conclusion of investigation, and summoning by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, especially in cases involving heinous and serious offences, and emphasized that the consent of the minor prosecutrix is immaterial. The court also highlighted that offences under the POCSO Act, 2012, being a Special Statute, cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. The court further emphasized that crimes against the body of a woman cannot be compromised.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application, stating that since the sections charged against the applicant are not compoundable, the court cannot proceed for quashing the case on the basis of the compromise.
JUDGMENT :
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Prem Prakash, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Doodh Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned State counsel and perused the records.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Sanjeev Kumar with the following prayers:-
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned order summoning order dated 16.2.2023 passed by Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Azamgarh passed in Special Session Trial No.54 of 2024, State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar, Case Crime No. 360 of 2023, under Section 376, 313 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bilariaganj, District Azamgarh.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be please to stay the further proceedings of the Special Session Trial No.54 of 2024, State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar, Case Crime No. 360 of 2023, under Section 376, 313 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bilariaganj, District Azamgarh pending in the Court of Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Azamgarh, during the pendency of this application before this Hon'ble Court, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/or may be pleased to pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. The sole ground as argued before this Court is that subsequent to lodging of the FIR, conclusion of investigation and summoning the applicant by the trial court for offences under Sections 376, 313 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act vide order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Azamgarh a compromise dated 01.03.2024 (annexure 12 to the affidavit) has been entered into between the parties and affidavit dated 01.03.2024 has been filed by the victim/prosecutrix before the trial court along with a copy of the said compromise deed dated 01.03.2024 duly entered between the applicant and the victim and also an application dated 01.03.2024 that the said case be decided in terms of the said compromise and as such looking to the same, the said compromise be sent for verification and the proceedings against the applicant be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon an order dated 06.06.2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in Crl. Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 41580 of 2022 (Fakre Alam @ Shozil Vs. State of U.P. and others) and has argued that in a case under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2N), 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the proceedings of the said case and thus the proceedings of the present case be also quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has no objection to the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that the opposite party no.2 has filed an application along with a compromise and has entered into a compromise with him and as such the petition be allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for quashing and submits that the date of birth of the victim is 30.05.2005 and the FIR was lodged on 13.10.2023 with the allegation that she was subjected to sexual assault since last three years and as such she was aged about 15 years at that point of time and was a minor. It is
The court ruled that serious offences under the POCSO Act, particularly sexual assault against minors, cannot be quashed based on victim retraction or compromise, emphasizing public interest in prose....
The court can quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the parties, especially in cases where the allegations could not be established and the continuance of the proceedings would be ....
High Court quashed abetment proceedings on victim-husband compromise after main rapist accused died, as conviction remote, parties harmonious, invoking Section 482 CrPC sparingly for non-compoundable....
Serious and heinous offences, especially those affecting the society at large, cannot be quashed based on a settlement between the parties, as it is in the interest of society that the offender shoul....
The court emphasized the careful exercise of the power to quash criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving heinous and serious offences, and highlighted the wide inherent powers of the High ....
Point of Law : POCSO Act – Compromise – Quash of criminal proceedings.
The court may quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences based on a compromise if the offences do not significantly impact society.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
