Smt. Khushbu Kashyap And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 9384 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 68
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1530 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Khushbu Kashyap And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Nirbhay Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

The applicants have preferred this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing a charge sheet dated 11.6.2020 and proceedings of P.S.T. No. 737 of 2020, 'State v. Ashish' arising out of Case Crime No. 559 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Firozabad South, District Firozabad, pending before the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Firozabad.

Briefly the facts are; a first information report was lodged by mother of the first applicant ? Khushbhu Kashyap against the second applicant ? Ashish leveling allegation of enticing away of her minor daughter. After the investigation, a charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. During pendency of aforesaid proceedings, the first applicant ? Khusbhu Kashyap married Ashish, therefore, a compromise application was placed before the concerned court and the same has been verified by order dated 24.2.2023.

As the matter pertains to offence under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, therefore, this Court by earlier order dated 20.3.2023 directed both applicants to remain present before the Court. In compliance thereof, applicant nos. 1 & 2 are present along with a two months old girl child. They are identified by their counsel Sri Nirbhay Singh (AOR No. A/N 0234/12).

Ms. Khusbhu Kashyap ? the first applicant states that she is living a happy married life and does not want to proceed with the case. She also states that her mother and other matrimonial family members have also accepted her relationship with the second applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of the statement of the first applicant, no dispute remains, therefore, further proceedings in the aforesaid case are liable to be quashed by this Court.

Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, he has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the second applicant.

Before proceeding further, it shall be apt to make a brief reference to a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that the compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the Apex Court reads as follows:-

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

In the case of Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 and in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Supreme Court has summed up and laid down principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings.

In view of the above, keeping in mind that continuance of proceedings would ruin the happy married life of the couple as well as child born out of wedlock of the applicants, I find that pendency of proceedings would be a sheer misuse of the process of law and wastage of time of the Court. This Court also feels that the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, is to safeguard minor children from sexual exploitation and not to criminalize any such relationship which culminates into a marriage between the duo.

Accordingly, the charge sheet dated 11.6.2020 and proceedings of P.S.T. No. 737 of 2020, 'State v. Ashish' arising out of Case Crime No. 559 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Firozabad South, District Firozabad, pending before the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Firozabad, are hereby quashed.

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned trial court forthwith.

Order Date :- 31.3.2023

DS