The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing a petition seeking quashing of proceedings against the petitioner, accused under Sections 376, 313 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, held that when an offence is made out against the accused irrespective of the fact that whether the prosecutrix was a consenting party or not, then certainly, the prosecution cannot be quashed merely on the ground that at a later stage, the prosecutrix has entered into a compromise and once the consent of the minor prosecutrix is immaterial for registration of offence, then such consent shall still remain immaterial for all practical purposes at all the stages including for compromise.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings against the petitioner, accused under Sections 376, 313 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act after he entered into a compromise with the victim.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant contended that subsequent to the 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 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), a compromise has been entered into between the parties and the proceedings against the applicant should be quashed.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state opposed the prayer for quashing and argued that the victim was minor at the time of the incident, charge sheet was submitted under the various sections on which the trial court finding prima facie offence made out against the applicant summoned him and the said petition be dismissed as a compromise in a case of this nature cannot be entertained.
Observations of the court:
The court referred to the decision in the case of Narinder Singh vs. the State of Punjab, wherein it was held that the power under Section 482 CrPC is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc and such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. However, for the offence alleged to have been committed under a "Special Statute" like the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
The court noted that in the present case, the applicant is also facing trial for an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which is a "Special Statute" and any offence under the "Special Statute" cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. Further, the court stated that when an offence is made out against the accused irrespective of the fact that whether the prosecutrix was a consenting party or not, then certainly, the prosecution cannot be quashed merely on the ground that at a later stage, the prosecutrix has entered into a compromise and once the consent of the minor prosecutrix is immaterial for registration of offence, then such consent shall still remain immaterial for all practical purposes at all the stages including for compromise. Merely because the minor prosecutrix has later agreed to enter into a compromise with the applicant, would not be sufficient to quash the proceedings. Since the POCSO Act, 2012 is a Special Act, therefore, in view of the provisions of Sections 375 Sixthly of IPC, the consent of the prosecutrix is material.
The court further stated that where the accused is facing trial for the offence of rape, then the factum of compromise under no circumstances can be of any help to him. They are crimes against the body of a woman. The honour of a woman cannot be put at stake by compromise or settlement.
The decision of the Court:
The court concluding that charges against the applicant are not compoundable and cannot be quashed dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar vs State of U.P and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Samit Gopal
Case No.: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9169 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Doodh Nath Yadav
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A., Ramesh Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
