Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(UT) 1930
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma
ABHISHEK RANA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
C482/2292/2022
Offences under the POCSO Act are not compoundable under Section 320 of CrPC, and the court has the discretion to compound offences only if there is a genuine and valid reason for doing so.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 482 - COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES - POCSO ACT - OFFENCES AGAINST MINORS - NOT COMPOUNDABLE - COURT'S DISCRETION - STATEMENT OF VICTIM - CONTRADICTIONS - MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was charged with offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act based on the statement of the victim, who later retracted her statement and denied the allegations. The applicant and the victim's father filed a joint compounding application seeking to compound the offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the offences were not compoundable under Section 320 of CrPC and that the compounding application did not provide a genuine and valid reason for seeking composition. The court also noted contradictions in the statements of the victim and her father, and found that the victim's statement may have been tutored.
Issues: Whether the offences were compoundable under Section 320 of CrPC; Whether the compounding application provided a genuine and valid reason for seeking composition; Whether the victim's statement was reliable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the offences were not compoundable under Section 320 of CrPC because they were serious social offences with wider social repercussions. The court also found that the compounding application did not provide a genuine and valid reason for seeking composition, as it merely stated that the parties had settled their dispute amicably. The court further noted contradictions in the statements of the victim and her father, and found that the victim's statement may have been tutored. Therefore, the court held that it could not compound the offences on the basis of the compounding application.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the compounding application and held that the applicant would face trial for the offences charged against him. However, the court noted that if the evidence during the trial showed that the case was one of malicious prosecution, the trial court could take appropriate action against the complainant.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2292 of 2022
(Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)
Abhishek Rana
… Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another
… Respondents
Advocate:
Mr. M.S. Bhandari, Advocate, for the applicant
Mr. Siddharth Bisht, Brief Holder, for the State.
Mr. Prem Prakash Singh Phartiyal, Advocate, for the respondent
Hon’ble 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
2
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:-
**fn0 16-12-21 dks xqe”kqnk gsek ijxkbZ dks cjken fd;k rFkk mlds c;kuksa
ds vk/kkj ij eq0 mijksDr esa /kkjk 365 IPC dks yksi rFkk /kjk
363@366@376 IPC o 3/4 POCSO Act dh o`nf/k dh rFkk
vfHk0 vfHk’ksd jk.kk s/o jkds”k jk.kk R/o xzke udqfy;k PS flrkjxat
¼m0fla0uxj½ mez 20 o’kZ dks uketn fd;kA ihfMrk n~okjk vius /kkjk 161
CRPC ds c;kuksa esa vfHk0 vfHk’ksd jk.kk }kjk mls cgyk&Qqlykdj ys
tkus rFkk “kkjhfjd laca/k cukuk crk;k gSA**
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
3
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 rai
