Allahabad High Court
Amzad Khan And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16355 of 2023
Applicant :- Amzad Khan And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Adil Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Adil Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Asheesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 who has filed his vakalatnama filed today in Court which is taken on record and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
3. Office to print the name of Sri Asheesh Tiwari, Advocate as counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and make a note in the order sheet.
4. The present Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Amzad Khan, Salman, Taqi and Rafi with the prayer to allow this application and quash the impugned charge sheet dated 17.11.2017 as well as cognizance order dated 20.01.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 0132 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 368 I.P.C. and 3, 4, 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Saidnagli, District Amroha, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act-02), Amroha in view of compromise dated 22.02.2023 and also be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case and with the further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the said case.
5. The facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged on 17.05.2017 as Case Crime No. 0132 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366 IPC against the said applicants. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet No. 203 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 368 I.P.C. and 3, 4, 7 and 8 of POCSO Act was filed against them on which the trial court took cognizance vide order dated 20.01.2018.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that during pendency of the trial the parties have entered into compromise and the opposite party no. 2 filed a compromise affidavit out of his own sweet will before the trial court on 22.02.2023, copy of the said affidavit has been placed before the Court which is annexure no. 4 to the affidavit. It is argued that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own sweet will and the opposite party no. 2 has settled the dispute with the applicants and has stated in the said compromise that there is no grievance left so he does not want to pursue the matter and as such the proceedings be quashed on the basis of compromise. Annexure no. 4 being the application and the alleged compromise affidavit has been placed before the Court to buttress the said arguments. It is argued that as such the impugned proceedings against the applicants be quashed.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for quashing. It is argued that the proceedings in the matter are of offences which are not compoundable. Learned State counsel has placed before the Court the judgement dated 29.3.2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2941 of 2023: Pravin Kumar [email protected] Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another, in which the said issue was taken up and the Court has held that since the case is under Section 376 I.P.C. read with Sections 3/4 POCSO Act are non-compoundable hence compounding on the basis of compromise entered into between the accused and the complainant is not legally permissible and has thus dismissed the same. Identically other co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8514 of 2023 (Om Prakash vs. State of U.P. and another) has also held that the criminal proceedings under Section 376 I.P.C. and POCSO Act cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise entered into between the accused and the victim. Further this Court in Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7087 of 2023 (Akash Maurya vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) decided on 18.4.2023, while relying upon the various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court also has held that the cases pertains to sexual offence cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.
8. After having heard learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants are accused in PST No. 1291 of 2021 (State vs. Waseem and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 343 of 2021, under Sections 376, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, quashing of the proceedings is being prayed on the basis of compromise said to have been entered into between the first informant and the applicants who are accused. The victim of the incident who is the daughter of the first informant is not a party to the said compromise. As per the judgement dated 29.3.2023 rendered in the case of Pravin Kumar [email protected] Kumar and 2 others (Supra), the Court has reiterated the law that quashing of proceedings of a case on the basis of compromise in non-compoundable offence is not legally permissible. Identically in the case of Om Prakash (Supra) and Akash Maurya (Supra) it has been held that the case pertains to sexual offence cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.
9. Looking to the law on the subject and the facts of the case this Court does not find it to be a fit case for quashing of the proceeding on the basis of compromise and as such the present application is dismissed.
10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
11. Office is directed to communicate this order to concerned trial court within two weeks.
Order Date :- 3.5.2023
M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
